Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin (R) loves to introduce far-right reactionary bills. Among his greatest hits are an assault of Georgia’s authority to vaccinate its citizens, an unconstitutional bill declaring Roe v. Wade a “nullity,” and, of course, a bill eliminating income taxes.

Yet Franklin may have outdone himself with his “Constitutional Tender Act,” which would require all transactions with the state of Georgia — including the payment of taxes — to be paid with U.S. minted gold or silver coins unless the state agrees to grant a special waiver for each transaction:

Pre-1965 silver coins, silver eagles, and gold eagles shall be the exclusive medium which the state shall use to make any payments whatsoever to any person or entity, whether private or governmental. Such coins shall be the exclusive medium which the state shall accept from any person or entity as payment of any obligation to the state including, without limitation, the payment of taxes; provided, however, that such coins and other forms of currency may be used in all other transactions within the state upon mutual consent of the parties of any such transaction.

Were Franklin’s bill ever to become law it would have immediate and catastrophic consequences for Georgia’s economy. Among other things, the U.S. Mint simply does not make very many gold and silver coins — the Mint has even suspended sales of precious medal coins when demand rises above very low levels — so it is unlikely that enough coins even exist to allow Georgia taxpayers to pay more than a fraction of their tax obligations if they are required to do so in U.S. minted gold or silver.

Lawmakers in other states, such as Utah, have proposed slightly modified versions of Franklin’s bill which would allow citizens to mint their own gold and silver coins, and proponents of both the Georgia and the Utah version of the bill tout it as a backdoor way to reimpose the gold and silver standard on America. This result, though unlikely, would also have disastrous consequences.

Gold or silver standards leave a nation completely powerless to control its own monetary policy, often tying inflation rates to completely arbitrary factors such as the rate that gold is mined in South Africa, rather than to the interests of a national economy. Worse, it leaves a nation without one of its most important tools to push back against economic downturns. In the 1930s, the United States was one of the last major nations to abandon the gold standard, and this failure to act was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression.

Sadly, however, the lunatic view that America should reembrace the failed economic policies of the Hoover Administration is not limited to a handful of state lawmakers. When the new Congress convenes next week, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will assume the chair of the House subcommittee that oversees federal monetary policy, and Paul has been pushing for decades to crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

Next year, Mississippi will make civil and human rights curriculum mandatory for public school students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. While civil rights is typically part of the Social Studies program, Mississippi will now be “the first state to require civil rights studies throughout all grades in its public school systems.” The subject will now be included in the assessment test students must pass to graduate. Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS), who signed the requirement into law five years ago, praised the new requirement: “To learn the good things about Mississippi and America and the bad things about Mississippi and America is important for every Mississippian.” These comments, of course, came “just days” before he offered his own version of civil rights history.

While school districts and the state government are celebrating the progressive change, one state representative took up a curmudgeon’s mission to kill the measure, filing a bill to repeal the law nearly every year since it passed. Convinced that civil rights will somehow interfere with his grandchild’s ability to “write a complete sentence and do math,” Moore fears a civil rights curriculum will accuse “one group of people” and will be “somebody’s philosophical idea of what civil rights are”:

Rep. John Moore, R-Brandon, has filed a bill to repeal the law nearly every year since 2006. Moore, who lives in a suburb of Jackson, said he wants to know who will write the textbooks and craft the materials students will be taught.

“I want schools to be teaching my grandchildren to read, write a complete sentence and do math,” Moore said. “I just want to make sure it’s teaching the truth and facts and not being accusatory of one group of people or the other. I don’t want it to be somebody’s philosophical idea of what civil rights are.”

In dismissing civil rights history as “somebody’s philosophical idea” about “one group of people,” Moore is articulating exactly why such curriculum is necessary. Indeed, Moore’s derision of civil rights is not just relegated to history. In considering current policy, Moore refused to support including sexual orientation in the state’s anti-discrimination laws and expressly rebuked any type of affirmative action. Future Mississippi policymakers may have a different perspective of discrimination if they understand its history from an early age.

One Mississippi student Perry Overstreet, who studied this civil rights curriculum, traveled to the town where Emmett Till was brutally murdered in 1955. Because he had learned about Till in class, Overstreet said “he was able to seek out landmarks associated with the case that sparked outrage and fueled the movement.” “It really opened my eyes to civil rights,” he said. “Mississippi has come a long way from back then.” No thanks, unfortunately, to those like Moore.

As Republicans prepare to defund parts of the Affordable Care Act in the new Congress, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer is warning conservatives that the strategy could lead to “chaos” and “incoherence” in the health care system. During an appearance on Fox’s Special Report on Monday, Krauthammer suggested that the GOP would be better off by holding hearings to “expose” the measure and orchestrating symbolic repeal votes:

KRAUTHAMMER: I am skeptical about taking away the funds because what it will do, it will poke holes in the system. It will make it more chaotic it will allow some things to be enacted, others to be more slowly or clumsily enacted and in the end, if healthcare collapses or if it becomes utterly unworkable, the Democrats will have a way of saying ‘well, it was all these injuries inflicted by the Republicans that made it not work.’ I think the smarter approach is to simply expose to the American people what’s in the bill….I think through hearings…you’ll expose that in a better way, whereas if you try to take away the funds, in the end you’re not going to succeed, but you may end up as the fall guy if the thing falls apart sort of in chaos and incoherence.

Watch it:

Whether Republicans take Krauthammer’s advice — a search on Critical Mention suggests that Fox has now re-broadcast his comments at least twice on other programs — is an open question, but the party will have to decide how to proceed as early as March, once the continuing resolution passed earlier this month expires. Republicans successfully defeated a larger omnibus spending package that included some $1 billion in funding for health reform.

For now, the House Republicans plan to vote on full repeal of the law and a series of other politically charged measures which would force vulnerable Democrats to back unpopular provisions and regulations. Yesterday, TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reported that the GOP is considering holding a vote on regulations that would “achieve the Obama administration’s goal of encouraging end-of-life planning,” in an effort to breathe new life into the “death panels” debate. Republicans have also said they would also hold a vote on the individual mandate and the 1099 reporting requirement, the one piece of the law which both parties now want to repeal.