My letter to the NY Times re: Why Republican leadership may lay out a "softer track" for the party

Dear Sirs:
Your article on the rise of Representative Eric Cantor states that he embodies the Republican Party's proposed "softer track" to gain electoral support. This raises the question of why it appears that a party cannot succeed with the electorate by stating the obvious fact that federal government spending is out of control and must be reduced. The answer appears on the same day in this article about the Fed's asset buying program. The Fed has made it clear that it can and will create $85 billion of new base money per month until unemployment falls below its desired benchmark. No one asks where the Fed will get this money, because everyone knows that the Fed can create unlimited amounts out of thin air. Since the electorate believes that Fed asset buying proves that there is no barrier to government spending, why should it vote for a party that will limit spending in any way? But we Austrian economists warn that the laws of economic science have not been suspended. New money cannot escape the law of diminishing marginal utility; i.e., new money causes the purchasing power of existing money to fall. Another word for this process is "theft".