The official blog of the Libertarian Party

« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »

May 24, 2005

Covering Iraq: Who's at Fault?

This week's "Outrage of the Week" involves the media's failure to report the actual violence and events in Iraq. Click here to give it a read.

While the media has lessened its presence in Iraq to a great degree (dropping from 800 embedded reporters to a few dozen), does the Bush administration or its supporters bear some of the blame? Or does the nation simply lack the fortitude to realize the sustained violence and its impact on our troops and Iraqi civilians?

Regardless of an individuals view on the justification for war with Iraq, the sacrifices of our troops, their families and the nation deserve a true accounting; the good, bad and ugly.

Additionally, in order to prevent future wars or at the very least increase diplomatic efforts before war, we must look to history for a full understanding of the impact of war. In the case of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the media is failing to write an honest picture.

Feel free to add your comments below.

Posted by Shane Cory at 12:35 PM | Comments (141)

May 23, 2005

Wookie or Libertarian?

If you haven't caught Joe Seehusen's open letter to Bill O'Reilly, give it a read. Mr. O'Reilly made the recent comment on his television show that, "I'm not a 'Star Wars' fan. I can't tell a Wookie from a Libertarian." Mr. Seehusen sent him a smart letter to clear things up and to let him know what type of people make up the Libertarian Party.

The response thus far has been overly positive with an exception from Darth Garner who wrote in to let us know his feelings on the matter:

Libertarians and Wookies actually have a lot in common. I am offended at someone else (in my party) being offended at this. Being compared to the peaceful, hard-working Wookies is a compliment in my opinion.

The Republicans resemble Jawas and the Sith, and the Democrats resemble Twi'leks or ineffectual Gungans. When it's all said and done, if we resemble anyone in Star Wars, it would have to be the Wookies.

Garner followed up by saying:

Libertarians have less hair than Wookies and we can actually use human language, and most of us don't live in trees. Beyond that, we have a lot in common.

1. Wookies don't believe in gun control.

2. Wookies love their independence and were willing to fight for it.

3. Wookies believe in self-reliance and free trade. They wouldn't allow trade restrictions to be placed on their logging industry, etc. and would rather die than be subjugated/enslaved.

4. Wookies had a very loose primitive government structure.

Feel free to add to the list in the comment box below.

Our loyal critic, Stephen VanDyke, had a different take on the matter:

Now while I do see the point of the LP responding to O'Reilly, I don't think it deserved an entire spiel to somehow inform O'Reilly of what Libertarians are, because the man is simply using hyperbole in a daft manner.

While Mr. VanDyke's alternative was humorous and worth the read, Libertarians must jump on every opportunity to properly define the Libertarian Party. If that means taking a few minutes to respond to a prominent talk show host's light jab, then so be it.

Posted by Shane Cory at 02:27 PM | Comments (76)

May 19, 2005

United Airlines defaults on pension plan, could spark a new massive government bailout

By Matthew Dailey

A new government bailout could be looming on the horizon. United Airlines received approval by a bankruptcy judge recently to default on the company's pension plan, which covers 120,000 active and retired employees, according to USA Today.

Judge Eugene Wedoff permitted the airline company's burden of unfunded pension liabilities to be shifted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, a federal agency that insures benefits are paid to retirees in the event the employer is unable to pay the required premiums. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp is funded by insurance premiums paid by employers who sponsor insured pension plans, plus any money earned from investments and any funds from pension plans they acquire.

Even though the PBGC is not fund by general tax revenues, the American taxpayer in the end could be footing the bill as a result of misguided government policy. More and more companies in recent years have defaulted on their pension plans, transferring a great deal of under-funded pension liabilities to the federal government. According to the Wall Street Journal, the agency has taken on obligations exceeding its assets by $23.3 billion -- including the new United Airlines bailout.

The bankruptcy judge's decision in United Airlines favor could provide a perverse incentive for other companies to follow suit. Within the last week, Delta Airlines announced it may seek bankruptcy protection and could very well take the same path as United.

By shedding responsibility for its pension plan, United Airlines now has a cost advantage against competitors. In a time of high fuel costs and intense competition, other airlines could look to default on their own pension plans as a way to severely reduce costs and remain competitive.

The federal government, which allows pension plans to have a significant gap between pension liabilities and pension assets, is partly responsible for this growing crisis.

Current pension regulations have devised a recipe for disaster. Here are some startling numbers. The PBGC has estimated total under-funding of the pension system is $450 billion.

And according to Richard Ippolito of the Cato Institute, "$85 billion is held by pensions whose sponsors have a bond rating below investment grade."

This could very well turn into another massive government bailout along the same level of the massive S&L crisis of the 1980's.

[Matthew Dailey is an employee of the National Libertarian Party in Washington DC. He recently received his Master's degree in public policy from George Washington University, and has been active in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party for several years.]

Posted by at 09:06 AM | Comments (23)

May 16, 2005

Detroit has a big appetite for new taxes

By Matthew Dailey

When it comes to implementing new taxes, the city of Detroit has an insatiable appetite. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick has proposed a 2 percent fast-food tax that would apply to any food sold at fast-food restaurants. The state of Michigan already has a 6 percent sales tax on restaurant meals. The city of Detroit has long been criticized of being a place of high taxes that drives away residents.

When Mayor Kilpatrick announced the fast food tax proposal, he did not come up with a formal definition of what constituted fast-food. According to USA Today, Kilpatrick's administration is still figuring out how to define "fast food."

But no matter how fast food is defined, the definition will be decided on a subjective basis by bureaucrats. McDonalds and Burger King will obviously be taxed, but what about those restaurants that fall in a grey area? Would Au Bon Pain or Krispy Kreme Donuts be taxed? They serve pastries and donuts respectively, and could be considered "breakfast fast-food."

Deputy Mayor Anthony Adams stated the city did not want to place a meals tax on all restaurants. In the last three years, 22 new establishments have opened downtown and he did not want to hurt this new development, according to the Associated Press.

He said he thinks it's OK to tax fast food restaurants because that particular market is "pretty mature." So this new tax will discriminate against an as-yet-undefined group of restaurants and their customers.

What the Mayor has not learned is that a cash-strapped city should not to create new taxes but rather should cut spending. According to the AP, the city "has five major revenue streams: state revenue sharing, an income tax, property taxes, a tax on its three casinos and a utility tax."

The city needs to curb its appetite for taxpayer's money.

If Detroit is looking to generate new economic development it should not be coming up with new ways to tax their residents. Instead it should look for new ways to eliminate or reduce existing taxes to attract residents and businesses.

[Matthew Dailey is an employee of the National Libertarian Party in Washington DC. He recently received his Master's degree in public policy from George Washington University, and has been active in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party for several years.]

Posted by at 01:03 PM | Comments (26)

May 12, 2005

The Real Implications of the Real ID Act

The latest "Outrage of the Week" is an eye opener as to the implications of the recently passed Real ID Act. Here's an excerpt:

Driver's licenses issued by states not fulfilling federal requirements will not be accepted by any federal agency. What does that matter? Here are a few scenarios that may occur if your state were to not fulfill the new federal obligations:

• Flying to see a relative in another state? Don't forget your papers: Domestic travelers could not pass through airport security checkpoints without a passport or a "Real" I.D. card.
• Want to serve your country? Apply for a passport first: Prospective military enlistees could not meet identification requirements with only state issued identification.
• Want to get a job? Not without federal documentation: The INS I-9 form is a required document for all U.S. workers. Section Two of the form requires identification to be examined by the employer. As no federal agency will accept "old" driver's licenses, your I.D. would no longer be valid. Be sure to bring your passport along to your next job interview.

Read more: http://www.lp.org/article_142.shtml

While it may be easy to write off objections to the new Real ID as paranoia, once it is fully implemented all Americans will realize the true impact of this bill which was slipped into an appropriations bill by republican leadership.

Let us know what you think about the Real ID and what can be done to fight it in the future.

Posted by Shane Cory at 12:14 PM | Comments (158)

May 11, 2005

Smearing Christian Judges

By Paul Gaston

People calling themselves Christians are gathering once again for a crusade against what they consider to be the secular humanist subversion of Christian values. This time the object of their wrath is the judiciary. In the wake of the fanatical and fruitless assaults against the judicial system for letting Terri Schiavo die, the Family Research Council will convene tomorrow what it calls "Justice Sunday," a live simulcast to pit Christian values against "our out-of-control courts."

The burgeoning assault on the American judicial system by right-wing Christians is an integral part of their attack on "godless" secular humanism. According to them, secular humanists nurture a culture that promotes abortion; encourages gay marriage; prohibits prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in permissive schools that indoctrinate students with Darwin's "theory" of evolution; preaches moral relativism; and generally threatens to subvert the Christian foundations of the republic.

What these self-avowed Christians do not acknowledge -- and what the American public seems little aware of -- is that the war they are waging is actually against other people calling themselves Christians. To simplify: Right-wing and fundamentalist Christians are really at war with left-wing and mainstream Christians. It is a battle over both the meaning and practice of Christianity as well as over the definition and destiny of the republic. Secular humanism is a bogeyman, a smoke screen obscuring the right-wing Christians' struggle for supremacy.

The assault on the judiciary is especially revealing. The vicious attacks on Judge George Greer, the Florida jurist who presided over the Schiavo case, reveal the bizarre nature of right-wing Christian fantasies. A regular recipient of hate mail and threats against his life that required him to walk to court with an armed marshal, Judge Greer is a lifelong Southern Baptist, a regular in church and a conservative Republican. None of those credentials protected him from the assaults of fellow Christians, including messages saying he would go straight to Hell. What he found "exasperating," he told a journalist, "is that my faith is based on forgiveness because that's what God did. . . . When I see people in my faith being extremely judgmental, it's very disconcerting."

Nearly all of the demonized judges are, in fact, practicing Christians, not secular humanists. Perhaps half of them are Republican appointees, and at least that many regard themselves as conservatives. In addition to Greer, most of the judges of the 11th Circuit who upheld his rulings, as well as most of the Supreme Court justices who declined to intervene, consider themselves Christian. And so it goes around the country, even including many, if not most, of the judges in the California-based 9th Circuit, the regular object of President Bush's ridicule. And, lest we forget, Charles Darwin himself was a serious Christian.

The history of a Christian church divided against itself is a long and bloody one. People calling themselves Christians have stood for war and peace, subjugation and brotherhood, communism and capitalism, privilege and equality, enslavement and liberty, imperialism and isolation.

That is one reason Thomas Jefferson insisted on religious liberty in the new republic. In his Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, he wrote that "millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity."

The present war within the Christian fold is perhaps more threatening to the republic than any of the previous intramural disputes. Right-wing religious zealots, working in partnership with the secularists who have advised President Bush, are a threat to the most fundamental of American principles. The founders of our nation welcomed and planned for spirited debate over public policies, including the role of the judiciary. But as sons of the Enlightenment, they looked to found a republic in which the outcome of those debates would turn on reason and evidence, not on disputed religious dogma. They planned wisely for principles that are now under wide assault.

All Americans, of whatever religious or non-religious persuasion, need to be on the alert to preserve those principles. The burden falls especially heavily on the mainstream Christians who are slowly awakening to the gravity of the challenge facing them. Too long tolerant of their brethren, too much given to forgiveness rather than to confrontation, they need to mount a spirited, nationwide response to what constitutes a dangerous distortion of Christian truths and a frightening threat to the republic they love.

The writer is professor emeritus of southern and civil rights history at the University of Virginia

Posted by Shane Cory at 10:58 AM | Comments (61)

May 10, 2005

Both Republicans and Democrats support the filibuster when it suits them

By Matthew Dailey

Senate Republicans' attempts to abolish filibusters against judicial nominees have generated a great deal of media coverage in recent weeks. They are calling for a forced up-or-down vote in the Senate, a practice that is increasingly being called the "nuclear option."

As usual in the current political climate, the Democrats and Republicans are portraying each other as unreasonable.

The Republican National Committee Web site claims Democrats "have become the party of obstructionism and double standards." Republicans say they are just looking for a "fair" up-and-down vote for the president's "qualified" judicial nominees.

In the Republicans' view, Democrats are only opposing Bush's nominees because of petty partisan politics. They say the Senate has a long history of giving judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, and they accuse the Democrats of not performing their "constitutional obligation."

But nowhere is it written in the Constitution that judicial nominees must receive an up-and-down vote in the Senate.

On the Democratic National Committee Web site, Democrats are portraying the Republicans as "pandering to extremists." The Democrats are opposing the nuclear option because they feel Bush's judicial nominees will "roll back equality, liberty, and individual rights of all Americans."

It appears the Democratic Party wants to protect individual liberty, now that it is politically expedient for them. They claim the Republicans are the ones violating the Constitution and Senate tradition.

According to the DNC Web site, the Senate has approved 95 percent of Bush's judicial nominees, opposing only those whose "records place them far outside the mainstream." The site notes further: "There may very well be times when changing the rules is appropriate, but it isn't when the majority doesn't get exactly what it wants."

A time the Democrats thought was "appropriate" was back in 1996 when they sought to abolish filibusters to give Clinton's judicial nominees an up-and-down vote, as David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently noted. And in 1999, Senator Tom Daschle was quoted as saying, "An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask."

Sounds very familiar.

Both Democrats and Republicans have demonstrated that they will support checks and balances and constitutional procedure when they can score quick political points or benefit their respective special interests. But it is also evident both major parties will abandon their principles when they get in the way.

Only the Libertarian Party has remained steadfast as the Party of Principle.

[Matthew Dailey is an employee of the National Libertarian Party in Washington DC. He recently received his Master's degree in public policy from George Washington University, and has been active in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party for several years.]

Posted by at 02:15 PM | Comments (28)

Take Action Against the Real ID Act

Within hours the Senate will vote on the Real ID Act which has been slipped into a $82 billion spending bill related to Iraq, the "Global War on Terror" and tsunami relief. If you are unfamiliar with the bill, take a minute to read it by clicking here (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).

The bill will impose universal standards for driver's licenses and I.D. cards, leaving little power to the states. Additionally, the new cards will be "machine-readable" creating a national citizen database. There is no doubt that this will lead to abuse by the federal government for an array of purposes. Additionally, the embedded technology could lead to easy identity theft along with massive privacy concerns.

Give your senator a call (click here for contact information) and tell them to remove H.R. 418 RFS from the appropriations bill.

Also, take a minute to visit a site quickly put together by Bill Scannell: www.UnRealID.com.

Posted by Shane Cory at 01:10 PM | Comments (21)

May 09, 2005

Afghanistan: It's Not Over Yet

Despite pre-election claims by George W. Bush that the "Taliban is no longer in existence" this non-existent group of radicals managed to put together a strong fight against U.S. Marines in Afghanistan which left two Americans dead.

According to an Associated Press report, the battle lasted five hours and involved several air strikes by U.S. warplanes. The battle represented "the latest sign of a revived Taliban-led insurgency."

While Bush pre-maturely claimed victory in Iraq on May 1st 2003, he managed to repeat the same mistake in regards to the Taliban and the ongoing fighting in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan seems to be past history to the republican administration. Despite growing problems in the area, increased violence and the free status of Osama bin Laden who may still be in the area, only 8,500 troops remain deployed in Afghanistan. Troop strength was greatly decreased to support the ongoing occupation of Iraq.

The authority of current Afghan President Hamid Karzai is representative of half-baked strategy employed over the region by the Bush administration. Karzai is known as the "Mayor of Kabul" as his power is said to be limited to the capital city.

Posted by Shane Cory at 12:40 PM | Comments (23)

May 04, 2005

Ann Coulter Stirs Up Another College Crowd: One Arrested

Ann Coulter, known for her bomb-throwing rhetoric and outlandish speeches recently riled up an auditorium full of University of Texas students. While booing and heckling is always prominent at a Coulter event, Austin Police had their fill of the political motivated speech and arrested one student after he presented Coulter with a lewd question. (Click here for the article and the question)

The student, Ajai Raj, was charged with a Class C misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. Coulter's response to the event was to say, "They're always trying to act like they're oppressed . . . So let's do it. Let's oppress them."

This isn't the first time Raj had been arrested in recent weeks. According to a blog entry on PartyCampus.com, he was arrested over spring break for drug possession. His experience led him to write, "I learned that, according to our 'justice' system, a straight-A college kid holding a bag of weed is as bad a criminal as a guy who beats his wife and kid."

Coulter, author of many "liberal-bashing" books including her recent How to Talk to a Liberal (it you must), is known to protect Free Speech as long as it isn't the speech of a liberal. She regularly whines about "liberal media bias" yet takes extraordinary steps to silence opposition during her public appearances. During a recent appearance at Kansas University, Coulter asked the crowd, "Could 10 of the largest College Republicans start walking up and down the aisles and start removing anyone shouting?"

In 2000, Ann Coulter was rejected as a candidate by the Connecticut Libertarian Party after expressing her desire to run as a Libertarian candidate against Chris Shays.

Posted by Shane Cory at 01:20 PM | Comments (63)

U.S. armed forces stretched too thin

By Matthew Dailey

In the May 3 New York Times, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated the deployment of troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan has "limited the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts."

The federal government now is admitting it has spread its military resources too thin around the world. According to the Heritage Foundation, as of 2003, at least 27 percent of America's servicepeople were stationed overseas.

Even after amassing a record trillion dollar budget deficit, we still insist on being the world's policeman. Up until now, the Pentagon has used various tricks to prevent resources from being overextended, using a stop-loss program to shore up troop levels.

This is not a long-term solution, as the effect of this policy is becoming evident. Reserve units are becoming strained from extended deployments. And as many critics have pointed out, the stop-loss program is nothing short of a back-door draft -- because it forces people to continue serving after their original deployment has ended.

It could also hurt future recruiting efforts. Potential recruits are wising up to the government's policy, knowing a 12-month deployment really means a 14-month deployment.

To better handle future conflicts we must begin to develop a comprehensive plan to significantly reduce the number of troops stationed across the globe. We cannot sustain this "American Empire" in its current form. We can build an empire on a foundation of free ideas and free markets, not weapons.

The United States can lead by example, promoting free trade and democracy. And most importantly, by allowing other countries to manage their own affairs and not be interfered with by the U.S. government. American business is more adept at spreading our values of creativity, hard work, and rule of law than any invading army. We should look to win in the global marketplace of ideas, not in the battlefield.

[Matthew Dailey is an employee of the National Libertarian Party in Washington DC. He recently received his Master's degree in public policy from George Washington University, and has been active in the Massachusetts Libertarian Party for several years.]

Posted by at 12:24 PM | Comments (21)

May 03, 2005

Bush Losing Social Security Battle

Social Security reform is clearly the leading issue of George W. Bush's second term. Unfortunately for the president, things are not going so well. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 51% of Americans do not support personal retirement accounts (PRA's) which is the basis for Bush's reform. On Bush's performance on Social Security as a whole, he received a whopping 64% disapproval rate.

While Bush speaks frequently regarding his plan for Social Security, many argue that there is no plan at all, only a set of lofty ideals that would throw money into the stock market. If you take the time to click on the WhiteHouse.gov link that says "The President's Plan" you may agree.

Details regarding the plan are sparse (at least on the White House web) which leads to a high amount of speculation for Bush-bots such as Rush Limbaugh and critics alike.

Some simple questions regarding Bush's supposed plan are:

- How will Social Security be sustained for current retirees and those approaching retirement? (note that progressive indexing only offers a partial solution)

- If a worker opts for PRA's what will the payout be upon retirement and can a lump sum be drawn?

- Why not be allowed to opt out of Social Security altogether as Congress and some local governments have done?

It's becoming clear that Bush and the GOP will be losing this battle altogether if they cannot answer obvious questions such as the ones above. Although PRA's may be a step in the right direction, if Bush and his republican party are allowed to set the initial direction for those steps, we may all be in trouble.

Posted by Shane Cory at 12:02 PM | Comments (45)