A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

R2 - Fiscal/Monetary Policy and the Role of Government in an Economy Prenote - By 'liberal', I refer to fiscal conservatism, a la Adam Smith and classical economics The dismantlement of the state, or the fiscal and monetary policy making machines that it contains would be diabolically stupid for any government of any country to do, especially in a country as democratic as the USA. The government is the only truly accountable institution there is, and is therefore the best institution to take on essential services such as healthcare, infrastructure, defense and education. In countries such as France or my home, the UK, how a government manages the services it provides is a key aspect of any political party's manifesto. This makes the government accountable for the services it provides, as if they fail to provide them adequately, they have effectively committed electoral suicide. Basic economic theory, along with a little common sense and research acumen shows that the private sector, in a liberal setting, is at best accountable on only a consumer choice basis, such as choosing which supermarket to shop at, or which brand of clothing to buy, though in a monopolistic situation, the primary aim of a private firm, especially a corporation, is to maximise profit. The aim of the government is to win votes, which it does, in the sphere of public services, by providing a service well, at either an affordable price or gratis. The corporations owning the hospitals do not care about patient welfare or providing a low-cost service, as they tend to have regional monopolies, which severely damage consumer welfare when in the hands of entities that have the primary objective of maximising profit. I assume that a conservative economic policy would relax laws that restrict price increases or cost cutting by the firms, thus allowing them to screw consumers to their hearts' content. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the only monopoly or essential service provider that should exist is a state-owned one, as they have accountability to the consumer and will not exploit them; and they can guarantee that the rich get the same services as the poor. Addressing the issue of cost that the GOP seems hell-bent on hammering home; the withdrawal of subsidies to health insurance companies, combined with the increased productivity that is resultant from having universal health care would compensate for the cost, as explained by the US spending twice as much money as a percentage of GDP than the UK does currently. The military-industrial complex is a fundamental evil in American politics. It profits from the misery of people in the Third World, who are killed, maimed or dispossessed by wars at far-flung corners of the world, which alienates the western world from Middle Easterners and in turn causes more wars, perpetuating the cycle of agitation, war, collateral damage, agitation, war, etc... I am in no way suggesting an isolationist policy, merely a peaceful interventionist policy that does not cost the US taxpayers a trillion dollars (if one includes interest on war debt) per annum. A Tomahawk cruise missile, for instance, costs in excess of a million dollars per unit, so that's over a million dollars of money that could pay for twenty nurses or police officers quite literally going up in smoke and being sprayed into Afghan and Pakistani civilians, combined in a total stockpile valued at around two and a half billion dollars. How can a person who is pro foreign intervention say that the need to murder civilians in foreign countries is more important than the need to provide basic healthcare to the forty million Americans that live without even the most basic form of healthcare? Fiscal responsibility is spending tax dollars on things that actually matter, rather than projectiles to fling at Middle Eastern shepherds or giving arms to Latin American warlord The Federal Reserve Bank is something the Tea Party wish to abolish, which would apparently increase liberty in the country and all the other right wing balderdash they peddle on an almost daily basis. A central bank is the cornerstone of a modern economy, and must exist for the economy to progress beyond the preindustrial world that the founding fathers existed in and the Tea Party seem intent on projecting America back into. Milton Friedman, though I fundamentally disagree with most of his theory, was right when he said that controlling the money supply was an essential component of a state, as it influences the behavior of individuals and businesses, and helps to maintain a stable economy with growth. I am opposed to private intervention in the Federal Reserve Bank, such as Wall St dabbling with the interest rates, but control of the money supply is all that prevents banks from charging extortionate interest rates and nothing being built. The federal reserve is a latecomer, with the Bank of England being established in the mid 17th century and the Bank of France in the early 19th century, though there appears to be an uncanny correlation between the establishment of a central bank and the industrialisation of an economy. As long as it remains independent of party politics and Wall St, the federal reserve is fine. In conclusion, their economic policies are ludicrous and reactionary, and should be left in the eighteenth century where they belong.