Thursday, November 11, 2021

On This Veterans Day, A Word About Those Who Support the Greatest Military in History

 This is the time of year that America rightly salutes, and gives thanks to, our military veterans who have protected this nation from foreign enemies for more than two centuries. I join in that celebration. My thoughts about them are conveyed in my Memorial Day tribute, and need no restatement here, except to reiterate the essence of that post:



The highest tribute I can pay to those who perished in that cause is to say that they were cut from the mold of the Founding Fathers; that they did not set out to die for their country but rather that they set out to fight, often at great personal risk, for the only values under which they desired to live—that radical set of ideals that is the United States of America. [See Related Viewing link]


But America’s veterans are not the whole story. So, I’d like to use this Veterans Day post to acknowledge the unsung hero of America’s military prowess, the productive American citizen. No military as strong and as competent as America’s can exist in a vacuum. It requires something else - something indispensable – a great economy.


America's economy, historically the most productive the world has ever seen, is the foundation that supports our military personnel. American taxpayers pay trillions of dollars in defense taxes. American defense contractors invest in and produce the most advanced weaponry in the world, weaponry that American soldiers rely upon to do their jobs, stay alive, and defeat the enemy. American technology produces the high tech means for our intelligence community to gather the information our soldiers need to keep track of the enemy.


What enabled the creation of the economic powerhouse that enabled the creation of our military powerhouse? What is the foundation of that foundation?


In 1776, the Founders of this nation signed the Declaration of Independence, which sanctioned the individual to egoistically pursue his happiness in support of his life, by guaranteeing him a government that protected his unalienable individual rights – his liberty – to act upon his own reasoning mind. That short document unleashed the power of the human mind, possessed individually by every person. The result was an unprecedented explosion of productiveness leading to exploding general prosperity and a standard of living unimaginable by the wealthiest noblemen of centuries past. The cause of that progress is simple: the unleashing of every individual to self-interestedly strive to make his own life the best it can be, by his own effort, in voluntary trade with others, free from the coercive interference of his fellow man, including the government. Another name for this social statement—free market capitalism. America was built not by sacrifice, as it is fashionable to assume, but by personal achievement unleashed by individual liberty.


America’s response to the threat of the Axis powers at the onset of World War II demonstrates this incredible power behind America’s military power—American free, private enterprise. If you’ve ever visited the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, you’d be struck—I know I was—by the section that displays the array of private, profit-seeking companies that rose to meet the threat posed by Germany, Italy, and Japan. Companies from Boeing and Caterpillar to Harley Davidson and the Mars Candy Company converted their consumer-oriented production facilities to produce for the war to defend America. Dozens of household names are profiled in the display, and undoubtedly far more smaller companies labored anonymously in support of the war effort.


Germany’s Hitler was said to have ridiculed America as soft, because America was good at making consumer goods like razor blades and washing machines, but not military hardware like aircraft. This was mentioned in a fantastic film narrated by Tom Hanks titled Beyond All Boundaries, presented by the museum. Indeed, charts on display at the museum showed that, in 1939, America’s military was utterly dwarfed not only by the commulative size of the Axis powers Germany, Italy, and Japan, but in comparison to those countries individually as well. But just a few short years later, America’s military dwarfed all three combined, as America’s industrial might turned its focus from producing consumer goods to producing for the American military. Hitler obviously underestimated what can happen when a free enterprise nation, which only wants to live in peace, freedom and prosperity, is threatened by tyrannical aggression.


Tyranny, as the history of WW II demonstrates—and as Germany, Italy, and Japan learned the hard way— is no match for a free market capitalist nation when that nation is aroused to turn its industrial might to self-defense. America won not only because of the bravery and skill of its soldiers, but in no small measure because America simply out-produced—in quantity and technological might—the enemy. Not only did America rearm amazingly fast, it did so even while rearming Britain and supplying arms to Russia, China, and other nations battling against the Axis powers. As the museum’s website explains:


Total war meant that all levels of the economy and all segments of society dedicated themselves to victory. FDR urged Americans to join the war effort by “out-producing and overwhelming the enemy.” While scarcity, rationing, and shortages became regular topics of conversation, so too did talk of duty, patriotism, unity, and victory. The United States, which had the world’s 18th largest military in 1939, mobilized itself for total war production almost overnight once the nation entered the war. The immediate conversion of peacetime industries into war production facilities involved companies of all sizes and types. Toy companies began to manufacture compasses. Typewriter companies made rifles and piano factories produced airplane motors. The Ford Motor Company ceased producing cars and began turning out tanks and bombers. And behind each soldier stood hundreds of civilian workers making everything an army needs to fight around the globe. The Depression was over. Full employment was a reality and confidence in victory was strong.


From 1940 until the Japanese surrender, the United States produced more than 300,000 aircraft, 86,000 tanks, and 12.5 million rifles. Its shipyards were just as productive, building 107 aircraft carriers, 352 destroyers, and 35 million tons of merchant shipping. The US also supplied a majority of war materials for its Allied partners. By 1945, the U.S. had produced more than twice the war supplies of Germany, Italy, and Japan combined.


If Hitler underestimated America, some in Japan, it seems, were more prescient. As Japan’s political leadership confidently prepared for war with America, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto soberly warned:


Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it would not be enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians (who speak so lightly of a Japanese-American war) have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.


After his nation's sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto was said to have uttered, “I fear all we have done today is to awaken a great, sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”


Indeed, from a starting point of 18th largest military, America had, as FDR envisioned and as Yamamoto feared, out-produced and overwhelmed the enemy. So, let’s celebrate, along with the brave contributions of our vets, the productive American of all income levels—the CEOs, entrepreneurs, innovators, scientists and inventors, workers, investors—and the resultant industrial powerhouse upon whose shoulders our military might stands. Let’s celebrate the individual pursuit of happiness that is the fuel for that American strength. Let’s celebrate his willingness to pay for, build, and support the military whose job it is to protect his pursuit of the good life.


Today, the foundation of America’s economic and military might is under intense attack by those who would “fundamentally change America”—a change that, in actuality, has been going on for decades. Let’s stand up and reject that slow-motion “change” from liberty to tyranny, and instead renew our allegiance to the Founding Fathers, who engineered a change from tyranny to liberty. The best tribute one can give to our military veterans is to vow to fight for the rediscovery and reinstatement of the ideals that this country stands for: the supreme value of the individual human being, his freedom, and a government whose sole duty is to protect his right to live and prosper for his own sake.


Margaret Thatcher correctly observed: "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy." That philosophy--the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is what the American veteran fought to defend, for herself and for us all. That is the fight that we all--we, as private citizens who value freedom, with freedom's most potent weapon, our individual voices--should continue at home.


Happy Veterans Day!!


-Mike LaFerrara



Atlas Shrugged – America's Second Declaration of Independence

Sunday, November 7, 2021

Menendez Caves

 Previously, I highlighted New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez’s seemingly strong opposition to his party’s bill to grant Medicare the power to negotiate prescription drug prices. Menendez said:


“My goal, which I have not seen in any proposal so far, is to ensure that the consumer at the counter gets relief and not just simply the government,” Menendez told NJ Advance Media.


“Otherwise, we will have done all of this, we will have taken billions from an industry that’s important to the nation, as we just saw with COVID, that’s important to New Jersey, but we still won’t have dealt with the cost of prescription drugs over the counter.”


Apparently, Menendez’s strong statements against Medicare drug price controls, masquerading as “negotiation,” were hollow. In N.J.’s Menendez backs deal to lower drug prices after opposing earlier proposals, Jonathan D. Salant reports: 


U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, who had opposed House legislation designed to lower the prices of prescription drugs, endorsed a compromise proposal on Tuesday that would allow Medicare to negotiate on some drugs and cap seniors’ out of pocket expenses.


Menendez said he had insisted that any drug pricing legislation would make sure “New Jerseyans and Americans all across the country finally see a meaningful reduction in the rising cost of drug prescriptions while protecting innovation on life-saving treatments.”


Medicare’s negotiating authority would be limited, under this “compromise.” 


Under the provision, Medicare will be able negotiate prices for up to 10 high-cost prescription drugs in 2023, with the new lower prices available beginning in 2025. The number of drugs subject to negotiation eventually will increase to 20.


But the door to price controls is cracked open. Does anyone really believe it won’t be swung wide open, eventually? The pharmaceutical Industry’s trade association explained the practical problem:


The drug industry’s trade group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the new proposal had all the problems of the old one.


“Under the guise of ‘negotiation,’ it gives the government the power to dictate how much a medicine is worth and leaves many patients facing a future with less access to medicines and fewer new treatments,” said Stephen J. Ubl, president and chief executive.


It’s also deceptive for labeling it “negotiation” and immoral for denying drug companies any real choice in pricing the medicines they create. Hopefully, other Democrats—it’ll only take one in the Senate—will see the danger and block the bill.


Related Reading:


NJ Senator Menendez Applies the Brakes to the Dem’s Push for Drug Price Controls


The Star-Ledger’s Medicare/Prescription Drug Misinformation Campaign


Pharma Can’t ‘Bargain’ With a Medicare Monopsony


Merck- Villain or Victim?


Huber on the Personalized Medicine Revolution—and the Government Roadblocks


How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health—Stella Daily Zawistowski

Wednesday, November 3, 2021

QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

 QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’


I posted this answer:


“Pushback on climate change” is unusably vague. So I’ll assume that what is meant is “pushback on government policies to “fight” climate change.” 


The reason is simple. Climate change danger has been vastly exaggerated to advance an anti-human agenda that values raw nature over human life, and that consequently aims to eliminate vital reliable energy; nuclear, hydro, and especially fossil fuels. There is no “climate crisis” (the term itself is conceptually senseless). The truth is, there would be an unprecedented human catastrophe if reliable energy were eliminated in favor of unreliable, super-expensive “renewables” like solar and wind. 


As to weather extremes, there was never a time, in the USA or worldwide, in which there was not “overwhelming proof of weather extremes.” They’ve always existed, and contrary to the perpetually failed predictions of the climate alarmists, there is as of yet little evidence that they are becoming meaningfully more extreme (although the possibility of some weather events becoming more intense in the future are plausible expectation). We’re living in a relatively tame period, in terms of swings in climate and extreme weather. If you want to see weather extremes, read Brian Fagan’s book The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850. What we are experiencing today is not only routine, it is mild compared to the rapid shifts in ocean currents, climate, and extreme weather that people endured during that period. What we have today is more akin to the comparably tranquil conditions of the Medieval Warm Period. *


What is undeniably true today is that climate livability and safety has surged. 


For example, climate related deaths from weather extremes (and natural disasters more generally) have plunged 98% to 99% over the past 100 years. Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey documents that the risk of dying from extreme weather since the 1920s has dropped by 99.75 percent. (Hurricane Ida, Climate Change, and Falling Trends in Global Deaths From Natural Disasters). If you want a really dramatic specific example of the tremendous positive trend in human climate safety and livability, consider two Indian ocean hurricanes of recent weather history, 1970’s  Bhola cyclone and 2019’s Cyclone Bulbul. The two storms struck the same area of India/Bangladesh, and were of comparable strength (tropical cyclones in this part of the world are called simply “cyclones” rather than hurricanes). Bhola killed about 500,000 people, Bulbul 24! As Aljazeera reported,


Bangladesh’s low-lying coast, home to 30 million people, and India’s east are regularly battered by cyclones that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in recent decades.


While the storms’ frequency and intensity have increased – partly due to climate change – the death tolls have come down because of faster evacuations and the building of thousands of coastal shelters.


That’s real progress in protection from extreme weather in just 5 decades, and the progress happened in the time period in which we are constantly told we are facing a “climate crisis.” And it was made possible by the adoption in that part of the world of fossil fuels, including coal, which more broadly powers the industrialization that actually makes us safer from climate dangers.


The statement “we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?” is childish. It’s akin to religionists asserting “overwhelming proof of God” in everything, without ever having to offer proof of anything. There is “such strong pushback on climate change” not because people don’t recognize that climate change is a natural feature of Earth’s weather or that human activity may be influencing climate, but because “climate change” is used to whip up unwarranted hysteria geared toward policies that would cripple industry and consumers of energy and cause, if fully implemented, unimaginable human harm. Climate change hystericists vastly exaggerate the danger while ignoring or minimizing the enormous benefits that accompany human influence on the climate.


Before we consider any political climate agenda, we should start with the age-old wisdom, “First, do no harm.” Don’t let the “climate crisis” hysteria of political and crony business interests, Environmentalist anti-industrial revolutionists, and the concerted media propaganda campaign that backs it to constrict your thinking. There’s more to this story. Broaden your mind. By all means, listen to the alarmists. I do. But be objective. Get informed about the motives behind the climate panic mongering, the vital importance of energy to our everyday lives, the actual facts about extreme weather trends today, the actual history of weather and climate, what the evidence shows about the relationship between weather-related disasters and climate, the positive state of human flourishing and the planet today that the climate fear mongering camouflages, and the continued industrial/technological progress and the enabling Capitalist freedom needed to foster both growing worldwide prosperity and the tools to deal with whatever extreme weather awaits us in the future.   


* [The 2019 edition includes an added Afterword by the author that the original 2000 edition did not have. Unfortunately, the conclusion of that Afterword gives an inexplicable nod to today’s climate catastrophism movement, complete with the usual straw man tactics. I say inexplicable because the last two pages of the Afterword contradicts the entire book. Nonetheless, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850, 2019 edition, provides invaluable context for evaluating today’s raging climate change contraversy and debate.]


Related Reading:


The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign


The Anti-human Tyrade of an Ungrateful 16-Year-old


We Owe Our Children a More Technologically Advanced Society, Not 'Preserved' Nature


It’s Time to Listen to the ‘Climate Denialists’


We Are Doomed Without, Not Because of, Fossil Fuel Use


CLIMATE VULNERABILITY AND THE INDISPENSABLE VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM—Kieth H. Lockitch 


Capitalist Industrialization, Not Handouts, is “Poor” Countries' Best Protection Against Natural Disasters


Stop ‘Denying’ the View From Outside the Climate Catastrophist Government Establishment


Sunday, October 31, 2021

What 'progress toward fixing climate change' Looks Like. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

 QUORA: ‘When we were in shutdown, the Earth started healing, and evidence was clear that pollution can be controlled, so why are so many afraid of progress toward fixing climate change?’


I posted this answer:


Pollution can and has been “controlled.” Progress toward cleaner and cleaner industrialization has been going on for decades. But that has nothing to do with “fixing climate change.” 


So many are afraid because the consequences of COVID-19 combined with government-mandated shutdowns -- the destruction of jobs, businesses, livelihoods, educational opportunities for kids, shortages, etc. -- indicates exactly what “progress toward fixing climate change” looks like. And it’s only a taste of what awaits us if the pushers of this kind of “progress” fully get their way. Given how vital reliable energy like fossil fuels and economic freedom means for humans the world over, the ultimate outcome of the fantasy of “fixing climate change” would dwarf the damage done by the shutdowns. We would endure the worst human catastrophe in history. 


The alleged “healing” of the Earth we supposedly witnessed is evidence, alright -- evidence that we need continued industrial/economic/technological progress to empower man to continue the progress toward greater and greater prosperity and more and more climate mastery, livability, adaptation, and safety. It is also evidence that we need continued access to reliable, affordable energy like nuclear and, especially, fossil fuels, by far the best energy source available for now and the next few decades, at least. The “evidence was clear” that we need to abandon the catastrophic goal of “fixing climate change.” 


So, be afraid. It’s logical, if you value human life, which those who value nature over human life certainly do not. The “healing” of the shutdowns is a warning shot to anyone who cares about human well-being. Pursuing the path of “healing the Earth”—which means, forbidding man to alter the environment to meet human needs—is a frontal attack not only on human progress and flourishing, but on human survival as such. It is the path toward worldwide genocide. Be very afraid—of what the climate witch doctors have in store for us. Their idea of “controlling pollution” (which is not defined) is to stop human life.


There is a better, pro-human approach, backed by a huge volume of expert research, to solving the problems of industrialization without harming progress. It begins with, “First, do no harm.” A good place to start is with The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-First Century by Ronald Bailey. It’s only a start to accessing the sane, humane alternative to climate catastrophism and earth first fanaticism.



Related Reading:


Crisis? What crisis? -- CDN


Power mad: Visions of an eco apocalypse have been used to justify a headlong charge to carbon zero for years. But this current crisis [the British fuel shortage] is a mere harbinger of the candle-lit future that awaits us if we do not change course. By MATT RIDLEY FOR THE DAILY MAIL


On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare by Michael Shellenberger


New U.N. Study Shows Climate Catastrophists Getting More Open About their Totalitarian Designs


The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand and other contributors; examines the philosophical and moral underpinnings of the modern Environmentalist Movement.  


Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Steven E. Koonin

Thursday, October 28, 2021

‘How things work in a Democracy’ vs. How things Work in a Free Society

In Parents Demanding School Officials Do Their Job ‘Not How Things Work In A Democracy’: CNN Guest, Ben Johnson, reportorting for The Daily Wire, recounts an experience a guest of CNN had at a recent school board meeting:


Rachel Vindman, the wife of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, reflected on her experiences attending her local school board meeting while discussing the importance of education as an issue in the Virginia governor’s race.


“Literally a woman at the school board meeting said she wasn’t able to sign up to talk about Critical Race Theory, so she signed up to talk about salaries. And her first opening salvo is, ‘I’m here to talk about salaries. You shouldn’t be getting yours, because you’re not doing your job,’” said Vindman. “So, this is what they want to say, like, ‘We’re only going to pay you if you do what we tell you [you] should do,’ and that’s just not how things work in a democracy.”


Vindman did not elaborate on how citizens commenting directly on public affairs undermines democracy.


An online video of the incident reveals little threat to democracy — from the mother. [As you can hear, the mother wanted to speak directly on Critical Theory being taught, but the slot was filled. So she, not unreasonably, argued that the topic she was allowed to speak on, salaries, covered the teaching of Critical Theory and explained her reasoning.]


No, this woman’s presentation is not how it works in a Democracy. But it is how it works in a free society.


In a democracy, the electoral victors reign supreme. They can do as they please, regardless of any particular constituents’ disapproval, by grace of winning an election. In a Democracy, electoral victory conveys on the victors totalitarian control. This is the sentiment expressed in the statement, “‘We’re only going to pay you if you do what we tell you [you] should do,’ and that’s just not how things work in a democracy.” Actually, that’s why a free society needs a Constitution -- to restrain the powers of government officials.


In a free society, elected officials wouldn’t be running schools. Schools would be private, and dissatisfied parents would be free to not pay schools for what they believe is “not doing your job,” by removing their children from that school, and spending their education dollars elsewhere. In a free society, private citizens are free to speak their minds; free to peaceably assemble at a public school board meeting (if they exist, though they shouldn’t) and voice opinions and express dissatisfaction; In a free society, the governed are free to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In a free society, citizens always and at all times, retain the inalienable right to hold government officials, from the president to members of congress to governors to school board members, directly and individually accountable: That’s what the First Amendment is all about.


This is why it’s so important to understand the difference between a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic, and to understand that America is, at least as originally conceived and designed, a Constitutional Republic. In our republic, the democratic process is vital, but always subordinate to the defining principle of America -- individual rights. An election is a collective means of holding government officials accountable. But America is not fundamentally about collectivism. America is about individualism, and its derivative, individual rights.


Of course, we live in a semi-Republic, semi-Democracy. Americanism has been greatly “watered down” over the decades, led by the Democratic Party/liberal/Progressive intellectual/political axis. Public schools exist, governed by quasi-dictatorial school boards, albeit elected. But a periodic election is not the primary means of keeping elected officials accountable. A single vote, cast every two, four, or six years, is important symbolically, but virtually meaningless in a practical sense. An individual woman expressing that teaching Critical Race Theory is not “doing your job” as educators directly to those responsible is what free people do to hold those we elect accountable. Yes, in a Democracy, properly understood, an elected official can tell an individual constituent to shut up, go home, and wait for the next election to cast her inconsequential lone vote, and leave we government officials alone to do what we please in the name of “the people.”   


The right of the people to keep their political leaders accountable is primarily about speaking freely, by voice or in print, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. That’s what the very First Amendment says. Democracy is not mentioned. Neither is the right to vote. The First Amendment is clear. It’s about intellectual freedom, not the procedural rules for selecting government officials.


Again, voting is not unimportant. But it is not a substitute for inalienable individual rights. Don’t let the statists get away with silencing dissenting parents, or anyone else, for whatever reason, for speaking out directly to public officials, while hiding behind the banner of Democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic based on individual rights. It is not a Democracy.


Related Reading:


America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters


The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


Rights and Democracy


Constitutional Republicanism: A Counter-Argument to Barbara Rank’s Ode to Democracy


Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny


The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur


Memo to Micah Herskind: ‘True Democracy’ is a Repudiation of Americanism


Monday, October 25, 2021

Is 'I didn't get it, so others shouldn't either" a Valid Argument Against 'Free' College

 QUORA: ‘Many say that because "no one paid for their college education, current people should not have their student loans forgiven either". Is "I didn't get it, so others shouldn't either" a valid argument?’


I posted this answer:


In the context of government student loans, yes, it’s a valid argument. But it’s not fundamental. And it’ll never win the argument. 


The reason student loans should not be “forgiven” is that a loan carries a moral obligation for the borrower to repay it. The money borrowed was loaned in good faith that the borrower would repay. Therefore, the only people qualified to “forgive” a loan are those who loaned the money in the first place. Since government loans are financed by taxpayers, only taxpayers can forgive the student loans. Since no one asked for my consent, and I haven’t given it, the government has no right to “forgive” student loans that my tax dollars helped finance. 


Of course, the government should not be taking taxpayer money to extend student loans to begin with. But that is a broader issue.


PS: 


(Please don’t remind me that some taxpayers consent to “forgiveness.” That line of argument points to the fundamental moral and practical problems of democracy and socialism. Democracy is majoritarian tyranny. Socialism is the legal (coercive) chaining together of everyone into a collectivized system that obliterates individual choice: Forced collective action, whether instituted by dictatorial fiat or the vote, always violates someone’s rights to make their own choices and exercise individual responsibility. My right not to “forgive” is just as valid as others’ right to forgive. Government loans make those differences irreconcilable, requiring one side’s rights to be trashed. Socialism, the political implementation of collectivism, necessarily creates conflict. In a private student loan system, no such conflict exists. 


(Since we have a collectivized student loan system, my view is that no student loans should be forgiven unless you can get every taxpayer’s unanimous consent, not just a majority’s consent via elected officials. On the personal level, having put two daughters through college, including with student loans, and having paid back every dollar of the loans, I resent having to now pay for others’ college. It’s a slap in the face. I don’t consent to forgiving today’s student borrower, so their loans should not be forgiven. The fact that other taxpayers consent does not justify screwing me over.)


Related Reading:


Student Loans Should Be Repaid


Federal Student Loans and the GI Bill


End, Don't Reduce, Federal Student Higher Education Funding


On "Nightmare" College Debt


Rather Than quibble Over Federal Student Loan Interest Rates, the Feds Should Get Out of the Student Loan Business


America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters