On Police Body Cameras

There is a lot of commentary and discussion coming from the Ferguson MO story that revolves around the idea that Police Officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty. I want to give a brief account of my own thoughts on this issue as it pertains to the need and the effects of pursuing this endeavor.

In response to the Ferguson story, where a young man was fatally shot by an Officer it has raised new concerns for law enforcement and renewed debate over the role, scope  and authority of the Police in America. In the discussion there has risen voices of both complacency and of concern.

The first is the voice of many people who defend the actions and the means of todays police forces. In that defense many will call for any actions necessary for police to “do their job” and will subjugate others to fund their ideas by the use of government and a ballot box. In these claims, the newest want is that of cameras to be worn by all officers, to record at all times, and the video to be made available to the public upon request. This idea is one of accountability and in that respect I would agree. Transparency and accountability is something that has been too long gone from government, even at the police or local sheriff level. Those that do not agree with the means or justifiable excuses by these departments should agree that accountability is needed and wanted in all government positions.

The other aspect of this idea is that of the economic impact it will have. As the calls for police issued cameras are thrown around an important thought has escaped the discussion altogether. The way police departments and law enforcement agencies are funded is through taxation, and in that, all new equipment purchased will be made through these funds. As someone who advocates for an end to legalized plunder (taxation) this idea goes against my own opinion and belief. I have said it time and again that whatever cannot be done through voluntary means should never be forced upon people. For those who call on their local and state police and law enforcement agencies to be equipped with cameras a fundraiser or donation from concerned citizens would be a rather better way to handle this. The subjective value theory again makes an appearance here. If those who do not see a relative value for the cameras (and other services and products for that matter) the forced extortion of them serves as a punishment by which they are victimized by a majority of people who “want without conscience or consequence”. These new victims are the result of a economic fallacy that what is publically funded is publically endorsed, even though those that do not endorse the idea will be subjected to its use against them. When any dissent from the idea or even the forced acceptance and funding of the idea is exposed it is usually met with some variance of the phrase, “it is for the betterment of the community and you get to experience it through safer streets and accountable officers.” But with this again the value placed on the idea by one does not always carry over to others. This idea of “social positives” through third parties or alternate means is the same argument made in relations to public schools and public welfare programs.

Another caveat to add to this is a comparison of costs to savings. When a police officer receives a compliant or if an officer has to go to court the ultimate financier is the taxpayer. All legal matters are paid for through their funding by the citizens. If these cameras were to have a positive impact of the number of incidences (meaning the number of incidences declines) leading to costly court battles and time lost, lawyers fees and compensation or settlements in and out of court (also paid for by the taxpayer) , the cost to savings benefit should be considered.

In the case of body cameras for police officers the idea to make these agencies and officers accountable and transparent is a noble goal that loses its appeal in the economic light of forced compliance and mandated funding.


Bolstering Bad Business

There should be a separation of business and government. When, like now, that separation doesn’t exist, bad things can and will happen. It is no secret that government run programs often fall victim to the worst in economic practices. We do not have to look far to see many recent examples of government bolstering bad businesses. With that in mind, two interesting articles came across my newsfeed this week and both are related in effect and cause. The two also show a failure in economic practices, and both deserve to be answered with some sort of rational economic thinking.

The first article I read showed that Amtrak, the mass transit rail program created by Congress in 1970, has been running huge deficits every year, supported by taxpayer subsidies. These subsidies have allowed a failing business to continue to operate on bad principles and creates a form of corporate welfare; all paid for out of taxpayers’ pockets. Altogether, taxpayers foot an average $1 Billion dollars annually into this program and it is only getting worse. One thing is for certain, if the business was made to live on its own revenue, like private business, it would either find a way to rid itself of detrimental wasteful lines or it would have gone out of business long ago.

The other was about the United States Postal Service and their quarterly loss of $2 BILLION. I am sure most of us can remember the price of stamps and services when we were younger, and I am sure we all remember almost every single time they were raised. But what makes this different than just rising with the rate of inflation, set and attempted to be managed by the Federal Reserve, is the annual rise in prices and services is met with an increasing deficit and an increasing annual subsidy from the taxpayer’s pocket.

Simple economics suggests that whenever a business receives bailouts or subsidies from government it is at the expense of not only the taxpayers but also at the expense of the market economy. As anyone should be able to see, the use of government subsidies coming from the pockets and paychecks of the American Taxpayer bolsters bad businesses and deepens a negative effect on sound economic principles.

Legalize Currency Competition by Ron Paul

Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Hearing on HR 1098: the Free Competition in Currency Act

I. The Problem

John Maynard Keynes once stated that “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” Such a situation is exactly what faces this country today, as the Federal Reserve seems hell-bent on destroying what little purchasing power remains of the U.S. Dollar.

Money is what allows civilization to flourish. Without money, consumers must barter their goods, hoping to exchange their products for those produced by others, and relying on a double coincidence of wants. Money enables man to rise above barter and makes exchange less burdensome. Once money comes into existence, businessmen can calculate profit and loss, homemakers can compare prices among different grocery stores, and individuals can begin to save and invest.

Unfortunately, monetary developments over the past century have eroded the stability of the monetary unit. The roots of this instability date back to the mid-19th century, when the government sought to establish a monopoly on the issuance of money. Until that time, gold and silver from numerous countries and private mints circulated as money. At this country’s founding, there was no government-controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the US Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign gold and silver coins such as the silver Spanish milled dollar, which was understood at the time of the Constitution’s drafting to be the basis of our dollar system. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States and did so for many decades. Since the dollar was variously defined as a specific weight of silver (or gold) it was relatively easy to determine the value of non-U.S. currency in dollars. Perhaps more importantly, the Coinage Act of 1792 ensured that the purchasing power of United States currency would remain stable, as debasement of the currency was punishable by death.Money as a medium of exchange should always satisfy certain properties. It should be durable, not wearing out easily; it should be portable, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange; and most importantly, it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly.

Since that time, the government slowly but surely tightened its grip over the issuance of money in this country. Resumption of gold redemption led to gradual acceptance of the federal government’s paper currency, and then to Federal Reserve Notes. Once paper currency drove gold out of everyday use, the government was the able to ban private ownership of gold in the 1930s. Eventually the gold window for foreign governments was closed in 1971, thus severing once and for all any link between the dollar and gold. For the past 40 years we have lived in a world in which the issuance of money is completely at the discretion of governments and central banks, and we are reaping the consequences. The fiat money standard has led from one financial crisis to another, as each attempt to inflate out of the previous bubble only sows the seeds for the next crash. Real wages remain stagnant or decrease, while price increases resulting from inflation of the money supply force American households to go ever deeper into debt in order to maintain a constant standard of living.As with most monetary malfeasance throughout history, the United States government’s drive to monopolize the issuance of money came about during a time of war. In order to fund its military operations during the 1860s, the federal government for the first time in its history issued paper currency which was unbacked by any commodity and was to be accepted at face value as a legal tender. These “greenbacks” quickly declined in value against gold-backed notes, and the government undertook numerous measures to eliminate competition and ensure that individuals would have to accept greenbacks. While some measures, such as banning futures trading in gold, were quickly repealed, other laws that banned the private minting of coinage remain in force today.

Economics teaches that monopolies produce fewer goods and sell them at a greater price than in a competitive market. This leads to inefficiency, deadweight losses, and over time complacency on the part of the monopolist. Most mainstream economists fail to extend the theory of monopoly to the market for money. Government monopolization of the issuance of money fails to produce the sound money the market demands. The poor-quality money that is issued continues to lose its value, and the American people must work longer and harder for money that continues to decline in purchasing power. Meanwhile, government agencies and the banking system benefit from the first use of that money, being able to spend it and lend it before it circulates through the rest of the economy and before prices increase in reaction to this inflation.

II. The Solution
The only way to counteract this problem is to break the government monopoly on the issuance of money. The Constitution does not grant the federal government this monopoly, a fact which was not in dispute for nearly a century after this country’s founding. The federal government has become complacent, forgetting the need for sound money, and the only way to break this complacency is to break the monopoly. HR 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act, intends to do just that.

Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied the market’s demand for money and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to fund either the welfare state or the warfare state.

On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don’t steal – the government hates competition.” Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. The history of this nation is filled with examples of increasing and unconstitutional centralization of power by the federal government. Militias, letters of marque and reprisal, and declarations of war have gone by the wayside; the postal monopoly drove out private competition; and a market-driven system of competing currencies was suppressed by the creation of a government-supported banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to return to sound money, it is necessary to undo the legal obstacles that forbid other currencies from competing against the dollar.

Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham’s Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king’s gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much “money” to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. This same phenomenon occurred in the United States in the mid-1960s when the US government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation.The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. Congress has the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of US Code, 31 USC 5103, that purports to establish US coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender.

These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Once the public realized that the king debased his currency by 50%, prices would eventually double, as it would now take two coins to purchase what used to require only one. The king who debased his currency spent his new money immediately, before prices rose, and thus gained the benefit of that new money. Most of the merchants and peasants who received the devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, they had long since had to suffer doubled prices, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit. In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham’s Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society.

The second step to legalizing currency competition is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. The government felt threatened by the Liberty Dollar, as Liberty Services had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007.

The sections of US Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are categorized as anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no US Mint to mint coinage. Even establishment of a US Assay Office failed to provide enough coinage, as the only coins they produced were too large to be used in everyday transactions. Foreign coins filled the void, but even still there was insufficient coinage, and these coins circulated at a value higher than their inherent metal value. The public clamored for smaller denominations of coins, and private mints stepped into the breech to fulfill this demand. The private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, federal laws were enacted which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency.

The final step to reestablishing competition in currency is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Coins held for less than one year are taxed at the short-term capital gains rate, which is the normal income tax rate, while coins held for more than a year are taxed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. These taxes on coins actually tax monetary debasement. The purchasing power of gold remains relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value of gold increases due to the weakening of the dollar by the Federal Reserve, the federal government considers this to be an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals.

Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 3-4% per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8% or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver coins. Americans should not be penalized through punitive taxation merely for desiring to hold or use one type of currency, nor should they be penalized for exchanging Federal Reserve Notes for US Mint-produced coins.

I hope that this hearing will start a vigorous discussion of currency competition, sound money, and how to return to a sound dollar. HR 1098 is certainly not a panacea, as there remain significant structural problems in our banking and monetary system that still need to be addressed. But allowing for competing currencies will enable Americans to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of Americans turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the US government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government’s ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system.

The Humanitarian case on Non-Interventionism

Many people tend to have a hard time recognizing the differences between Non-Intervention and Isolationism; rather using the terms interchangeably and erroneously. The classical argument of refraining from intervention into foreign affairs, entanglements and conflicts comes from the belief that national interests should remain in the nation and that no matter the action, internationally, eyes and opinions would be cast towards whatever nation becomes involved in a situation amongst other nations. Many of the founding members of the government of the United States held beliefs in this idea.

Genocide, Holocaust, War, Invasions, Operations, Missions, and Conflicts all involve at the very base people, human beings, that for whatever their own reasons seek to extend the wishes of the governing body they submit to. Governments, and by extension entire countries and the majority of people who make up the society or population of, commit to end conflicts between themselves by the brutality of War. Sometimes they use this when all other means to peace have been exhausted, sometimes as an initiation of violence and others as a defense. These governments recruit, draft and conscript those citizens of value to them, the young, stronger and the productive, to the ranks of their militaries. For this we will only be addressing military intervention; though economic intervention through blockades, embargoes and sanctions should be addressed the same way.

Non-Interventionism seems a pretty simple and straight forward principle. “Do not intervene in affairs of other countries that do not directly affect the US”. But in this very simple statement lies questions.  And serious questions. These questions have been answered repeatedly by many authors, and their acceptance is up to each individual to decide.

Is there a Humanitarian Case FOR intervention?

Of course this question begs the individual to place a subjective value on a human life and pit that against the value of another life. Because the intention and action to do harm to others is a factor to the value of a life for most, it stands that those persons doing harm or threatening to do harm would be subjected to a lesser value than the so called victims of events. Saving a life by taking a life can be seen as justifiable by some and somewhat undebatable to others. The judgment of those who will do harm or violence to others is a constant in the political world, hence a presidential kill list, drone bombings and secretive missions by highly trained military members in government sanctioned assassinations and murders. Even in everyday life, the citizens of every country place value on the lives of every other nation’s people.

Can there be a Humanitarian cause for military intervention. In this question lies an impasse of logic. Can the killing of some be considered “humanitarian” if it is the case to help others to live? If a country’s government were to threaten another with nuclear annihilation, would it not be in the humanitarian sense a point for justifiable intervention?  To ensure the loss of life is kept at a minimum and the worldwide effects of such an act be avoided? One could argue in the defense of the intervener as the wholly humanitarian effort and against the aggressor as the initiator of force. But the end result of to take a life to save a life contradicts the compassionate excuse it seeks to eradicate.  In the purely libertarian sense, one can urge intervention so long as those whose mind is made up against said intervention are not forced or coerced into facilitating the action, whether that be through taxation to afford the intervention, conscription to the cause of the intervention or whatever other means to force a person to act against their own belief of non-intervention.


What is the Humanitarian case AGAINST intervention?

Military intervention comes in many forms. From the small arms trades and sales, troop training, asset maintenance and facilitator of large weapons and munitions, and of course the act of entering into a military conflict with supplies of troops and mechanized weaponry. In the present, all of these actions are ultimately coerced from those who may or may not hold value to them, as stated before, increased taxation and conscription are all part of the norm for these types of affairs.

The Humanitarian case comes into effect at the soldier level and at the economic impact level it has on the citizenry of the intervening nation or state.  Each soldier’s life and those that they may take in combat or those that die from indirect conflict related economic hardships are not necessarily counted as such in current times. But each one of these should be considered when trying to make a humanitarian case either for or against intervention of any kind. As stated before the taking of one life by any means declares the end result of any intervention wholly inhumane and against the stated goal of saving humanity from death or harm.


What are the effects of Intervention?

There is a persistent fallacy associated with those that claim Non-Interventionism is Isolationism. Calling someone an isolationist has become the favored insult to Neo-Conservatives and the Neo-Liberals to cast towards libertarians. While not every Libertarian completely agrees with the idea of Non-Intervention, the same can be said of the idea of Intervention by Conservatives and Liberals.

The term Isolationist is one that for the most part is used erroneously and in a kind of inaccurate, hypocritical way. If the refraining from foreign affairs isolates any nation or state from any others it is in a belief that the non-intervening state or nation has some Responsibility to Protect (R2P) any others. In this theory any nation’s citizens should come to expect to be saved by all other nations or states if their respected nation or state fails to provide adequate protections. In that aim any nation’s citizens can expect to oblige to pay for any such intervention by their government. But this obligation often comes begrudgingly or not at all voluntarily. Should any state or nation, in their attempt to save another, put their own citizens at risk? Or to force them to give up their wealth on a choice not made by them that they may not find the least bit worthy of their contribution?

Sometimes intervention has other effects; creating enemies and leading to an inclusive war or attack by an offended nation or state. It has the effect of reduced production in consumer markets; due to enlistment, conscription or mandatory transfer of market production to production of intervention bound supplies.

However you view intervention it is imperative to comprehend that no matter what type of intervention is being touted, it ultimately is not in the name of humanitarian efforts. It is, as it is now, a monumental shift of wealth and lives into the domain of public welfare, domestic theft of wealth, imperialism and will have further effects that will affect those who have had no choice to submit their own voice against the will and actions of the government they live under. 



The effects of international sanctions come full circle in the latest from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As he moves into a full ban of all US agricultural products, including poultry, as well as EU fruit and vegetable imports in response to Western sanctions imposed on Russia over the Ukrainian crisis.

This is the effect of reciprocity, as one government causes losses to another the other shall reciprocate in kind with sanctions of their own. None of these sanctions shall have much effect on the government or its employed people, but have detrimental effects on the citizens of the countries under these governments.

As RT (Russia Today) reports “All agricultural goods produced in the US and imported into Russia will be halted for one year, the assistant to the head of Rosselkhoznadzor, Aleksey Alekseyenko, told RIA Novosti.
The list of banned products will be published on Thursday, he added.
EU fruits and vegetables also fall under the ban, Alekseyenko added. A source told Itar-Tass that dairy products from the EU will be included on the list, as well.
“The list includes milk powder, butter and cheese,” the source said, adding that this also includes mass production cheeses”

The U.S. imports $19.6 million dollars of these products into Russia each year, but other countries are willing to step up and fill the void left in importation of these products. “Alekseyenko stated that many countries that did not sanction Moscow are ready to increase their exports of similar products to Russia.”

This is of course the only expected response from Russia short of declaring War upon the US and EU.



What Do You Call A Man Fighting For His Home?

A person who fights against an invading force in their home country is called what?
A. Hero
B. Patriot
C. Terrorist
D. It depends on what the US Government calls them
As you answer this question take a minute to think about what is asked here.
If a person, any person, from anywhere in the world, from any religion, from any creed or color, any nationality, backed by any government or a free person fights against any invading force in their home country what do you call them?
It gets a bit more complicated when you stop to think of how what people think and how people act are two entirely opposite things, polar opposites in fact. 
In one breath I bet most would say this person would be a hero or a patriot, but think about it another way. What do you call those Afghanistanis and Iraqis fighting for their home? What do you call the Syrians and Saudis, the Pakistanis and Yemenis that are taking up arms against the invading American Government’s military? 
Are they still considered Heroes and Patriots?  
Or did they Magically become Terrorists, Radicals, Murderers? Did the American Government labeling them terrorists change what they were fighting for or against? Did the final root situation change? Or was it all the mindset and perception of the individual being manipulated by an outside entity?
A member of a military, any military is no more a hero or patriot for attacking someone else’s home than the other for protecting his home. The Invading force is no less a terrorist than the other for doing what he does.
This is a test of the idea of Nationalism. A test of mindful hypocrisy. A test to the idea of what is called “American Exceptionalism”
Did your answer stay the same from beginning to end?
Let me know on Twitter @PatriotPapers

How Conservative Can You Really Claim To Be?

The typical conservative claims to believe in smaller government, reduced spending and reduced taxation, but their actions go against this supposed belief. Recently I have been hearing Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives railing against these very stances in opposition to political opponents.

In Florida the governor’s race is seemingly between Incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott and former Governor Charlie Crist, who while governor was in the Republican party but later switched to an Independent and finally settling with his current party affiliation in the Democrat Party. The campaign ads against Charlie Crist are easy fallacies and half-truths; they are simply hit and run ads trying to come across as something meaningful and worthwhile. The first issue the Republican Party and conservatives are harping on is that under the current Governor the State is spending MORE on education than ever before and calling the Charlie Crist era the worst decrease in educational spending.

Yes you read that correctly, they are saying that reduced spending is bad and increased spending is good.

To Charlie Crist’s benefit I can say this, his time is office was during the greatest recession (some calling it a depression) in our lifetime, so far anyways…

So why does this matter? The Republican Party would like you to believe that what transpired under Crist was solely on his hands, reduced spending on education, high unemployment, record numbers of foreclosures in the state and the number of businesses dropping was not an isolated incident only in the State of Florida, but a result of a National Recession, Housing Market Crash and Wall Street Problems. Now that those conditions have cleared up, or have been covered over, whichever you believe, the current Governor, Scott can seem a better alternative to Crist. But anyone who looks at the issue from the stance of the conservatives can clearly see the hypocrisy in the campaign against Crist.

Though not endorsing anyone for this race, if you live in Florida please be aware there are other options, and also consider abstaining from voting at all.

This trend of saying you believe in one thing and acting another way isn’t confined to the State of Florida. This mentality is nationwide. It seems to be just the nature of politics and the want for power and control. Republicans and Conservatives will champion a policy of reduced spending, except in key areas mainly Military and National Security. These two areas in particular are the holiest of holies in terms of non-negotiable items to be reformed or reduced. The annual spending in these two areas have been increased in the last few years with many Republicans voting in favor of the increases. Adding to these costs is the added departments and bureaus being introduced and bolstered by increased funding. All of this flies in the face of the stated stance of Conservatives and yet they see no problem with it. Florida isn’t the only state where this is happening either, it is a widespread issue.

Now the call for the Border Fence comes in. 
In the past few weeks an increase of people coming to the American-Mexican border has increased. This increase has rekindled the debate for immigration reform and adding more funding to building a border security fence, adding border patrol agents, buildings and in the most extreme cases using military troops to repel immigrants by force if necessary. But all of this costs. It costs money and the only way the government sees to gain this money is to increase taxes to the citizens. This again goes against their stance on reducing spending and lowering taxes.

According to the US Immigration office “It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, U.S. taxpayers spent $90 billion on securing the U.S.-Mexico border. This includes various expenses such as the cost of deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, which is $110 million per year, the average salary of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent, which is $75,000—in 2010, there were 20,000 CBP agents deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border, the cost of an X-ray machine to peer into cargo trains and trucks, each costs $1.75 million—of which the U.S. uses 165. There is also the cost of building fences, employing drug-sniffing dogs, the use of predator drones, and various other incendiaries.” 

Foreign Aid 
Foreign Aid costs the American Taxpayers around $23 billion in 2013, or a total of $37 billion if you include assistance to foreign militaries. This is approximately 1% of the total US Budget. Even this being only 1% of total budget  it is still such a large portion of money coming out of the paychecks and purses of every American Citizen. This is another one of those areas where so called conservatives are anything but. The issue facing Foreign aid is the idea of taking money from the people of one country and handing it over to another. 
Intervention costs money
The Neoconservative War Hawks and Pro Interventionists will fail to grasp that their intervention into affairs of other countries and governments will have an economic impact. Any intervention that is proposed costs money to implement. Whether they wish to send humanitarian aid, food, training, military weapons, to impose sanctions or even blockades, this will always costs taxpayers in the end. Just the intervention in Crimea cost the American people $896 Million.
The War on Drugs and the War on Terror are two more examples of a reluctance to curb spending and instead cast themselves headlong into hypocritical action over their beliefs. These two programs have been dismal failures and have cost not only billions of dollars annually but have also cost the lives of countless people.
The War on Drugs has created a situation that the US is facing now in Mexico where the drug cartels are pushing people towards the borders and have taken over as warring monopolies. 
The War on Terror is the Combination of wasteful spending, increasing budgets and the creation of new and expanding departments. Spending billions in an attempt to “Make Peace by War”, it is something that never was, and never will be. 
How Conservative can you be when you support these programs and ideas? How conservative can you really call yourself if you tend to spend more money year after year, raise taxes, build a bigger and more intrusive government? These are just a few of the many ways that conservatives have lost their definition and have went full steam in the opposite direction.