Peter Schiff Unchained

The popularity of investment advisor Peter Schiff has grown explosively since he locked heads with the pundits on TV in 2006/2007 by correctly forecasting the current recession.

No, he's not some magic guru - just a man who understands economics (real economics, Austrian economics) and told the truth to the American public on television. Now Schiff is taking it to the net, with a new radio and TV show where we finally get to hear him talk without suffering the interruptions of fools.

His March 04 podcast is remarkable for some points made to the scandal-du-jour that have lasting import. Lasting and important enough to transcribe for 'phreadom' readers (thanks nomin)! Here's an excerpt of the podcast where he explains what is right about 'wishing ill' upon the stimulus.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh said some things that the dems jumped all over, Obama jumped all over. It shows how they like to spin this stuff and demagogue on these issues. What Limbaugh said was that he hoped Obama would fail. He didn't want him to succeed, he wanted him to fail. Now of course, the democrats jump on this as if Rush Limbaugh wants America to fail, wants the economy to fail, wants the stock market to fail, and he's hoping that all this bad stuff happens to discredit Obama.

Well of course that's not what Rush Limbaugh means at all. And a lot of people are afraid to talk about what he really meant. Look, Rush Limbaugh wants America to succeed as much as anybody wants America to succeed. But what Rush Limbaugh understands is that in order for America to succeed, Obama has to fail. He has to fail at getting his agenda through Congress. If Barack Obama gets everything that he wants, if he can fully implement his agenda and his plan, there is absolutely no chance the US economy will succeed. There is a 100% chance that it will fail. So the only way for us to succeed is for Obama to fail, and we need people in Congress to oppose what Obama is trying to do. The problem is, the loyal opposition - in this case the Republicans - just don't have any credibility on this issue; because how can they oppose Obama when he wants to do exactly what Bush did? That's the whole big irony of this whole situation. Barack Obama constantly talks about how it's different now, how it's so much different under his administration, that the voters wanted change and he's here to deliver it. Well I got news for you: there is nothing different. All Obama is doing is continuing the failed policies of Bush.

He's got the same Wall St. types running government. He took the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and stuck him in Treasury. It's the same people that are in charge and it's the same policies. It's bailout failing companies and stimulate the economy with government spending, trying to encourage more consumption. That's exactly what Bush did. They're trying to prop up real estate prices -- well, that's what Bush did. It's all the same. He can talk about how different it is, but there is no difference. The only difference is the degree. He's simply out-bushing Bush. We're getting Bush on steriods with Obama. We're getting even more government, so that's the only change. He's doing exactly what Bush did only worse. So if you didn't like the economy under Bush you're really not going to like the economy under Obama because it's the same stuff.

What would be change, what would really be change, is if we stop bailing companies out, if we stop trying to stimulate the economy, if we reduce government spending. At the same time Obama is criticizing Bush for running up a big deficit during his term of office, what is he doing? What budget is he about to sign? Nearly a 2 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in a single year, dwarfing anything Bush did! So how can you criticize the deficits of your predecessor and run up even bigger ones yourself?

Now he's trying to say he's got no choice, he's forced to do it because of the circumstances. Well that's nonsense. Of course he has a choice. He can level with the American public and do the right thing. Bush can say the same thing: he had no choice, he inhereted a recession just like Obama did. He came in at the bursting of the dotcom bubble, right? Clinton. Just like Obama, comes in after the bursting of the real estate bubble. And so what did Bush do to try to fix the economy? Exactly what Obama is doing now. He ran up deficits, he increased government spending, and this is the result! So how can Obama criticize Bush for running up deficits to stimulate the economy when that's exactly his policy, only with bigger deficits?

Now the only thing different is Bush slightly reduced taxes on the rich and Obama wants to slightly increase taxes on the rich. Big deal!

In fact, the thing that bothers me is one of the only things that the republicans are criticizing in the Clinton (meant to say Obama) budget is the fact that it raises taxes when that's the least of the problems. It's the big spending that's the problem not the tax hikes and the tax hikes are small. Sure, it's a move in the wrong direction, we should have spending cuts, not tax hikes. But you know, the one thing that I support that Obama is doing is taxing carried interest as if it was ordinary income, and it's ridiculous for the Republicans to try to argue against that, that somehow there's something wrong with making rich hedge fund managers pay the same taxes on their income as everybody else. It makes no sense, it's absurd to try to defend that position. Now they try to make believe that it's capital gains, it's not capital gains, they're not risking thier own money. When I'm managing somebody's money and they're giving me 2% management fee and I get 20% of the profits that I generate for them by managing their money and I earned that 20% of the profits without risking a quarter of my own money, it's income. It's the same type of income as a broker earns when he charges a commission, or a traditional money manager or a mutual fund manager when they charge a fee. It's the same type of income, the same risks are involved, there's no reason for one to have a lower tax rate than the other.

What the Republicans should be championing, is not just lower taxes for rich hedge fund managers, it's lower taxes for everybody. We should make the tax rate the same and then lower them, lower the marginal rate across the board. But the only way we're gonna do that, is if we cut government spending! Because we can't have less government, we can't have lower taxes, unless we have less government. Because the taxes support the government. So if we want to pay less taxes we need a smaller government.

But, what Obama is doing is dramatically increasing the size of government and unfortunately that's not where all the republican critcism is being leveled -- it's being leveled on these tax hikes. And again, I don't think it scores them politcal points to be defending the paychecks of hedge fund managers and people on Wall St. especially since it's Wall St. that the public is already blaming for a lot of this mess. To try to defend their tax loophole is absolutely ridiculous, it's a waste of political capital. I don't know where these guys are getting their politcal marching orders, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to proceed this way.

In the media's mental mudput filled with partisan hackery and endless misdirection of the public to pablum, tripe and drivel, Schiff stands out like polished gold.

Bless you, Peter. Long may your voice be heard throughout the lands.