Ray Stevens put out a song that the lib'ruls are gonna hay-yate!

Yup. He did it.

One of the USA's great comedic writers has gone and written a song critical of our beloved President's budget! The nerve!

Apparently, he done gone and made a video for it, too!

I became aware because a friend and respected former co-worker (boss, actually) put it up on Facebook with the comment "Now Ray has the plan!" He immediately found the humor in the song. I didn't.

Ray Stevens has a long, storied history in American music, penning and recording some pretty big hits, starting with Ahab the Arab (long a on the first syllable of each) back in 1962, then there's Mr. Businessman, Gitarzan, a cover of The Coasters' Along Came Jones, Bridgit the Midgit and, of course, The Streak, which hit the airwaves in 1974 after streaking became a brief, popular fad in the US. All comedic pop songs, these. Then there are a couple of serious songs — Everything Is Beautiful back in 1970, and a very nice bluegrass-inspired cover of an old standard called Misty which went to #14 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart back in '75, and #3 on Country, originally a hit for Johnny Mathis in 1959 and covered by just about everybody else since...

So, Ray's got some cred. Mostly known for comedy songs, Ray's got a knack for reading his audience, and creating content which caters well to that audience, which became decidedly more right-ish around 1980 with the release of Shriner's Convention, a natural progression for a good ol' Georgia boy after the almost inevitable decline in popularity that only a rare few artists avoid, like The Stones, The Eagles, U2, and REM, for example. Several artists from the 70s found success in country music after their pop careers fizzled. The Bellamy Brothers come to mind.

Not being too big a fan of country music, Ray kind-of dropped off my radar, and that hasn't changed as a result of this song, and this article isn't really about the song, or about Ray. It's not even about playing to your audience, which I applaud Ray for his ability to do, even though I don't approve of his willingness to hop on the bandwagon which vilifies a pretty good President for things over which he has no control.

Nope. This is all about my usual beef with the right, where you have a whole bunch of people who have really strong opinions on various issues which affect us all despite being woefully underinformed or inadequately educated to have what could be reasonably mistaken for a valid opinion at all, fueled by some seriously savvy people who are quite adept at inspiring such people to latch-on to their views on the basis fear or righteousness.

It's only human to have opinions. We all have them. You and I have pet issues dear to us. I have a strong, unflinching opinion on the right to choose. Others have an equally strong opinion on the right to life, and it is, probably, the number one defining issue which separates Democrats & Republicans, but there are some on both sides who fear that their party's faithful aren't faithful enough to ensure that their party remains in power or in the President's office.

Despite their assurances to the contrary, the right has a serious upper-hand here. The Republican Party's ability to play to their audience is legendary, and they are not above adding the right spin to make things uglier than they really are, or placing the blame where it doesn't really belong. Those who own the Republican Party will stoop to any new low in order to win the battle of evil vs. lesser evil. They will spin, fabricate and flat-out lie to win you over. But this isn't the worst of it.

What's worst is that they are able to sell their vicious, vindictive, vile vision of a reality which doesn't exist to a public who are quite willing to just lap it up without actually bothering to do any independent research on their own, a public who is willing to accept a position on really important issues because Rush or Glenn or some Fox News hack delivered the messages, not having the presence of mind to realize that they are being indoctrinated into a grand scheme through the use of the repetition of various catch-phrases and untruths, cooked up by the right-wing media machine, to be publicly dissiminated through the various propoganda outlets intent upon fostering a public opinion centered around their particular goals. It is marketing. It is pandering. And all too often, it is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

It happens on the left, too. I've seen images of people at Tea Party rallies holding up signs reading End the Fed!. I've seen the same signs presented at Occupy protests, although, to be fair, there are Tea Party people actively participating in the Occupy movement, which isn't really tied to any politcal party's agenda, despite the lies you might have heard that it's funded by the Democratic Party. They had absolutely nothing to do with it.

My big beef here is that, in his song, Mr. Ray Stevens is easing along this notion that the government prints money to pay its debts and that this is going to cause inflation and the country's just going go to hell in a bucket.

I'm not the smartest person in the world. I'll freely admit that. But I've been doing my homework here. And I have re-affirmed for myself something that I've known for years.

It's a shocker. I hope you're sitting down.

The US government doesn't print money to manage its debts. It can't. Neither Congress nor the President have the authority to cause money to be printed and released into the economy. It is, indeed, the Federal Reserve which controls this, and the head of the Fed doesn't take orders from the President or the Congress. No one can call up Ben Bernanke and tell him to print more money. They do not have the authority to do that!

There are good, valid reasons why the Fed would print more money, but these are beyond the scope of this article, and I certainly don't wish to present the notion that I'm an expert in economics. I'm not. But none of the Republican presidential contenders are, either. When Rick Perry said that if Ben Bernanke were to print more money between now and the next presidential election, he'd be treated "pretty ugly" in Texas, he inspired both anger and laughter, but the most laughable thing about that was the notion that Rick Perry had any clue what he was talking about, what with that impressive 2.5 GPA he got as he pursued a degree in animal science, which, essentially, qualifies him to run a farm. Badly. Equally laughable is the notion that your average resident of the great state of Texas (or any other state) has a credible, valid opinion in the matter. Rick Perry is not an economist. Neither is Rick Santorum. Or Michele Bachman. Or even Ron Paul, although I don't doubt that of all of the contenders which might want to end the Fed, Mr. Paul probably has the most valid opinion in the matter, even if I don't agree. I don't even claim to fully understand, which is the whole point!

---

Here's a short list of people who didn't do any of that:

---

I'm not an economist. I don't have a degree in economics and I'm not particularly well-read on the subject. What I mostly know about economics is that I'm not even remotely qualified to offer an opinion on whether 'tis good or bad to end the Fed. My guess, though, after the research I've been doing lately, is that it's probably not a good idea, and I'm going to need to learn a lot more about it before I'll commit one way or the other, and I'm going to need to hear a lot more credible people touting the benefit of ending the Fed before I would even briefly consider the notion of voting for a candidate based on his or her position on that issue, especially if I doubt the candidate's qualification to even have an opinion in the matter. Economics is, believe it or not, a rather complicated subject, not to be dallied with by fools. Like Rick Perry. Or me. Or you.

You need some serious educatin' before you can adequately grasp the complexities of the Federal Reserve System in the United States (or any other country). You are not going to magically become adequately informed about its role and function by listening to pundits on television or radio. You need to, essentially, make this your life's goal. You need to eat, live, and breathe economics for a long time before you can have a serious, valid opinion on monetary policy. You need a degree in economics. You probably need to get yourself a Ph.D in economics before you are even qualified to ponder whether or not the Fed is a good or bad thing. Rush can't tell you this — he's not qualified. Neither is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or any other talking head you might find in the media. Newt Gingrich isn't qualified. Nor is Barack Obama, although Mr. President is probably more qualified than Newt, who, despite all his peccadillos & indiscretions, is better qualified than most of the other Republican presidential contenders. I am not qualified, and it's more than a little likely that you aren't qualified, either. Nor is Ray Stevens.

In case you didn't know, Sean Hannity is a college dropout. So is Rush Limbaugh. Glenn Beck didn't even go to college. I'm not telling you this to malign these distinguished broadcasters in any way, other than to confer upon you the knowledge that they are no more qualified than you or the man on the moon to have an opinion on anything of importance, and they don't particularly deserve to have any influence over your thinking whatsoever. Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand, actually does have some education under his belt — his two masters degrees don't qualify him to comment too authoritatively on the Fed, but at least he did submit himself to the sort of disciplined mental stimulus required to fill his head with something above and beyond the mire and mush that occupies the headspace of your average American troll, like me. But his being a verifiable Mr. Smarty-Pants doesn't mean that he isn't just as bat-shit crazy as the rest of the Republican & Libertarian minded pundits on your TV set. He is, decidedly, more smarter than me or you. But is that enough? Should we take everything he says at face value just because he sounds like he might have the knowledge and skill required to make an electron or two jump the spark gaps of his cerebral cortex? Really? Does his bachelors degree in history or his master of arts in broadcast journalism or his master of public administration mean that his opinions on economic theory are any more valid than his opinions on, say, neurosurgery?

Does the national debt have an effect on business' ability to create jobs? Are job-creators thinking about the deficit as they decide whether or not to create a job? I don't know for sure, but I wonder: when was the last time that the debt or the deficit entered into any financial decision that you ever made? Did you ever not buy a house or a car or remodel your home or send your kid to college because the national debt is just too damn high? Is it really an issue that affects you, or are the media pundits just pandering to your fears in order to get ratings? Or, more sinisterly, to inspire you to adopt a political position based on their ability to manipulate your fears?

Should we return to a gold standard? Why? So that rich people can still be rich in the event that the US government fails? It doesn't mean that you will be. How does this help me, your average Jim? What's in it for me?

Perhaps the better plan is to let's make damn sure that the US government doesn't fail. Maybe we should encourage our more wild-wild-west, gun-totin', gub'mint-hatin', but never-gonna-be-rich-anyway citizens to focus their energies on the continued success of our government, that we all not only wish for and work toward the success of our government, but insist on it at every level, to demand that those whom we elect to public office actually serve the public interest, and not Exxon's. Or G.E.'s. Or the military industrial complex. That we staff our government only with people who believe in the power of government to do good, weeding out those who insist otherwise. What a concept! A government of The People, by The People, and for The People. But I digress.

In the case of Rick Perry, Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, or any other current Republican presidential candidate, I fully doubt that they could have a valid opinion on economic matters, so...

What the hell is it that makes some beer-swillin', fried-chicken-chompin' chump from Bumf--k, Iowa carrying a protest sign that reads End the Fed think that he or she has a valid opinion in the matter and that anyone else should care?

"Glenn Beck said so" isn't a good enough answer, nor is "I been doin' some readin' up on the subject" (i.e., me). Kinda-sorta thinking something, even something controversial, in the absence of direct, personal knowledge is perfectly normal and okay. "G-d dammit, I'm right, you're wrong, you commie fool an' I'll kick yore ass" (short version: anger) because you heard a bunch of windbags reciting the same talking points over and over and over, and because you harbor a deep-seated psychological need for a bogey man is not okay. Watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limpballs does not an expert in economics make. Put your sign away and come back when you can justify your position with sound logic and reason, and a demonstrable acumen in matters of economics, which would preclude any tendency on your part to consider voting Republican, because by then, you'd recognize them for the pandering puppets, posers and liars that they really are.

Learn. Protest. Vote.

Nice job on the video, Ray. Even if it is just pandering to an audience that doesn't really know any better.