The official blog of the Libertarian Party

« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »

August 30, 2005

Vermont At-Large Congressional Race

In our latest installment regarding the 2006 House races, we take a look at Vermont's only congressional seat. Because it is an open seat, many political pundits predict this will be a competitive race. The state leans Democratic, with John Kerry receiving 59 percent of the vote in 2004.

Rep. Bernie Sanders is vacating the seat to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Independent Jim Jeffords. The race is shaping up to be a crowded field. Democrats planning to enter the race are State Senators Matt Dunne and Peter Welch, and former State Senator Peter Shumlin. The Democrat selected in the primary will be considered to have an advantage in the general election.

The Republican Party has recruited National Guard General Martha Rainville, who only recently declared her party affiliation. It is rumored that Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie is planning to enter the race. Dubie would be considered the front-runner in the Republican primary if he decides to enter the fray. There is no official word yet from the Libertarian Party of Vermont as to whether they plan on running a candidate.

The fact Vermont has a single House seat usually turns the election into a very heated battle, since it is a statewide election. The lone House representative gains additional attention because he or she is not in competition with other representatives, while the state's two senators have to share the spotlight and the credit.

Posted by at 02:54 PM | Comments (45)

Hawaii caps wholesale gasoline prices

Hawaii is the first state government to "solve" the recent record increase in gasoline prices. A new law taking effect this week will allow the Hawaiian Public Utilities Commission to institute a cap on the wholesale price of gasoline. Wholesale prices will be set weekly by the commission members, who claim it will be set so the producers will have a healthy profit margin.

The Hawaii state legislature erroneously believes the retail price of a product is only determined by the cost of production. There are other factors involved when determining the final price of a product, such as transportation and distribution costs.

Consumers are looking to the state government for a solution to their gasoline prices which are the highest in the nation. Hawaiians pay more than people living on the mainland because of the higher cost of transporting gasoline to the state and because the state has the highest gasoline taxes in the nation, now over 57 cents a gallon.

Despite going against modern economic theory, Hawaiian politicians believe instituting a wholesale price cap will make gasoline more affordable for their constituents. State Senator Ron Menor said, "over a period of time, Hawaii consumers will realize savings at the pump."

Rather than keep prices from going higher as intended, the new price control law may wreak havoc in Hawaii's gasoline market. A similar policy was tried nationwide during the Nixon and Carter administrations. What resulted were widespread shortages complete with the infamous long lines at gas stations.

Back then the federal government, like the Hawaiian government today, claimed it would take into account the interests of the oil producers and include incentives for producers to drill for more oil. Like many other well-intentioned government incentives it did not work well in practice.

Events like severe weather, a crude oil price shock, or the possibility of war could make the wholesale pricing policy fall apart. Alarmingly, many of these events have already come to pass. These events may cause retail prices to spike quickly in Hawaii and cause them to be higher than they would be in a true free market.

Posted by at 11:53 AM | Comments (41)

August 29, 2005

Should the Libertarian Party endorse the Fair Tax bill?

By Patrick J. Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas

On Saturday the State Libertarian Executive Committee of Texas (SLECT) considered endorsing the Fair Tax bill (HR 25). Both the Libertarian Party of Maryland and the Libertarian Party of Virginia have already endorsed it. Local representatives from Americans for Fair Taxation and former Maryland Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Spear Lancaster presented the issue to our committee. SLECT decided not to endorse the Fair Tax bill.

Although I strongly support such an endorsement, I respect the fact that we remain the Party of Principle. SLECT members did not allow political considerations to overrule scrutiny of the bill on matters of principle. Unlike other political parties and Congress, Libertarians are likely to actually read a bill before approving it.

The main issues of concern were:

There was a perception that this could be a polarizing issue within the party like the Iraq Exit Strategy and lead to a split. Of course, anyone that has been to a Libertarian Party platform debate knows we deal with polarizing issues all the time.

Some said they did not have enough time to read the bill and would like more time to consider this. The item will be reconsidered for the agenda on our December 3 SLECT meeting in the Dallas area.

Some members perceived that portions of HR 25 suggested that the purchaser, not the retailer, would be liable for the tax. Consequently, this seems to also suggest that a federal agent could demand that you produce receipts to prove that you paid the retail tax on your possessions.

One individual said, "if a Libertarian really thinks that a sales tax is better than an income tax, he should at least wait until a better bill is proposed." He further commented by saying, "The Fair Tax bill will never make it to a vote. It is too radical and could kill our fragile economy." Should we endorse only a purely libertarian bill or prefer one that has a chance of passage?

Some have the impression that under the proposed fair tax legislation, the federal government would have records of all your retail purchasing history.

Some were unclear about Congressman Ron Paul's position. He is on record saying he would vote for it (www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/scorecards/score_tn.html)
but has also written that he has concerns with a national sales tax (www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul237.html).

I have read HR 25 as well as the FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder and feel that it is a dramatic step in the direction of economic and personal liberty relative to the IRS. I realize it does not get us in the end zone but gets us closer to the goal line.

Should the national LP or your state LP organization endorse the Fair Tax bill? Which way should LP members urge their national and state LP executive committee members to vote on this matter?

Posted by at 03:18 PM | Comments (140)

August 26, 2005

Should States invest in candidate training?

By Patrick J. Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas

The Libertarian Party of Texas is offering a "Weekend for Winners" conference in Austin Sept 17-18. The focus of the conference is an intense candidate training seminar provided by the prestigious Leadership Institute (www.leadershipinstitute.org). This conference is not exclusive to Texas and participation is encouraged from any state. This is an ideal opportunity for serious candidates, campaign managers, and volunteers to get prepared for municipal and general elections in 2006. Details and registration can be found at LPTexas.org.

I can personally attest to the fact that without good, professional help I would not have won my city council race in Lago Vista. Everyone that I know of that has attended Leadership Institute training has raved about it.

With the new dues model approved by the LP, more responsibility is placed on state organizations. Efforts such as fund raising, membership, training, outreach, and organizing will need to be picked up by states.

Do you feel that the "Weekend for Winners" is the kind of effort that state LP organizations should be making? Are there better ways for states to invest their time and resources?

Posted by Shane Cory at 10:35 AM | Comments (41)

August 24, 2005

Illinois District 6 Congressional Race

As part of an ongoing series of articles we will be highlighting the competitive open seats and incumbent races in next year's House elections. These are races the Libertarian Party can have a significant impact on. Our first race that we will take a look at is the Illinois District 6 race.

Longtime Republican incumbent Rep. Henry Hyde has decided not to seek another term and is retiring, leaving his seat open for the 2006 House mid-term elections. In the past few years, the Illinois Republican Party has gone into disarray with a growing rift between conservatives and moderates. This situation could be exploited by a Libertarian Party candidate, siphoning off critical votes. Evidence the race could be very competitive is the Democrat received 44 percent in the 2004 election against Henry Hyde.

The early Republican front-runner is State Senator and former congressional aide, Peter Roskam. On the Democratic side, technology consultant Christine Cegelis, Workers Compensation Administrative Judge Peter O'Malley and college professor Lindy Scott are planning on entering the race. According to the Libertarian Party of Illinois there have yet to be any candidates that have expressed interest in entering the race.

Posted by Shane Cory at 01:26 PM | Comments (52)

August 18, 2005

Washington Employee Union Strong Arms Workers to Join

A union representing state workers in Washington State is looking to stem the tide of declining union membership by using a new tactic -- force employees to join or get fired.

After being elected earlier this year, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire gave the Washington Federation of State Employees the authority to fire any state worker who either refused to join or pay the "representation fee" of $45 a month.

This measure was part of a larger effort to water down the Personnel Reform Act of 2002. The act gave managers more flexibility in hiring and firing and allowed workers to bargain directly with the governor on provisions of their contracts, according to Foxnews.com.

The state employees union successfully lobbied the new governor to allow the union to challenge provisions in the new law, such as making it easier to fire bad workers or perform outsourcing. The watering down of the Personnel Reform Act will mean higher labor costs for the state government, which will be passed on to taxpayers.

Since the measure was approved by the governor, membership in the state employees union has practically doubled with income reaching $10 million, as reported on Foxnews.com. The big increase in membership is state employees joining the union because they are afraid of losing their jobs. "I think a lot of us jumped on the bandwagon out of fear," said state employee, Kristie Hubble.

Not only will workers be forced to support a union they may not like, but also political candidates. The union contributes overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party, who receives 75 percent of their contributions. State union employees are supporting the Democratic Party whether if they like it or not.

Posted by Shane Cory at 12:41 PM | Comments (67)

August 16, 2005

NYC Tells Restaurants to Hold The Fat

In the wake of successfully pushing through a smoking ban in restaurants and bars, the New York City Department of Health has moved on to a new crusade, this one against unhealthy eating. On August 10, 2005 the health department asked New York City restaurants to stop serving food that contained trans fats, reported by the New York Times.

The health department has started an education campaign to educate restaurant owners and the public about the dangers of trans fats. The impetus behind this latest "government-knows-best" initiative is the high rate of heart disease in the city. As part of the educational campaign, the city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas R. Frieden sent out a letter that stated: "Consumers want healthier choices when eating out. Our campaign will increase consumer demand for meals without trans fats." City health officials have taken upon themselves to make sure people are eating healthy when they dine out.

What could be construed as preparation for their campaign against trans fats, city health inspectors conducted a survey of New York City restaurants and found between 30 and 60 percent use trans fats in their cooking, as reported in the New York Times.

This raises an important, and perhaps an overlooked, question: Why is the city health department investigating which ingredients restaurant cooks use? The city health department is directed to make inspections of eating establishments and food suppliers; making sure satisfactory sanitary practices are followed, such as the preparation and storage of foods. This additional survey performed by city health inspectors is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

Dr. Frieden stated in a New York Times article that his department plans another survey of the city's restaurants to gauge on how well the campaign is going. They will look to see if additional steps are warranted. It remains to be seen if the city's campaign against trans fats will remain voluntary if it meets with a lukewarm response in the coming months. The fact the health department is performing another survey could be interpreted that it would consider passing mandatory regulations if they find compliance not up to their standards.

The city health commissioner has tried to lower citizens' fears by claiming his department does not want to ban trans fats outright. Yet the city agency has compared the dangers of trans fats with asbestos and lead, "materials that at one point the public believed were safe but now are known to be dangerous." Comparing a former paint additive that can cause permanent brain damage to a food ingredient derived from vegetable oil that can contribute to heart disease is misleading. City health officials making hyperbolic statements like these are simply trying to scare the public.

In their zealous quest to get citizens to live healthier lives, the New York City health department has not taken into account the cost to restaurants in removing trans fats from the menu. With establishments like donut shops and bakeries, trans fats is a main ingredient. Finding a healthier alternative to trans fats could come at an additional cost to restaurants.

In some instances customers patronize a restaurant for the simple reason that it does not sell healthy foods. Les Halles in downtown serves French fries that contain trans fats, which had the manager Jack Cameron commenting: "This restaurant is a place to go and splurge, and you're not concerned about health issues," as reported in a Los Angeles Times article. A pastry chef at Amy's Bread remarked, "Each individual should make up their own mind about what they do and do not want to eat."

This is an attempt at back-door regulation on the part of the New York City Department of Health. New Yorkers should stop the growth of government power upon their lives and tell the New York City Department of Health to stop interfering with their personal choices.

Posted by Shane Cory at 04:03 PM | Comments (66)

Robbing Peter, Paul (and Mary)

by Stephen Gordon

"How do you know it's election time?" Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik mused. "The Republicans are babbling about eliminating the IRS again. Give me a break." - as reported at WorldNetDaily.

If there is one thing most Libertarians agree upon as a priority political issue, it is taxation. Tax concerns have not been on at the top of the list of national Libertarian issues lately, as our focus has been rightfully centered on the Patriot Act and other civil rights suppressions, the Iraq War, and recent egregious Supreme Court decisions.

However, the new book by talk show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-GA) has hit number one in the NY Times non-fiction hardcover bestseller list. Boortz and Linder have been successfully touring the southeast for the last few days promoting The Fair Tax Book.

Over the weekend, they appeared in the small town of Fairhope, Alabama. The local Page and Palette bookstore sponsored the overflow event. According to an unverified local rumor, the signing had to be moved to a local auditorium in order to have enough seats for the anticipated crowd. According to some participants, not only were all of the auditorium seats filled, but there was little to no standing room left, either. The newspaper reports that a reception was held at Page and Palette following the event.

Being frequent supporters of Libertarian Party of Alabama (LPA) events, store owners Kiefer and Karin Wilson allowed the LPA to host an OPH booth at the book signing. According to OPH organizers James Hines and Dick Coffee, not only was the event a smashing success, but the outreach was, too. Hines reports 90% of people taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz charted as libertarian. With this kind of success in even a small town (Boortz and Linder move to Birmingham tonight), perhaps it is time to renew the topic of taxation.

While we, as Libertarians, tend to agree with the basic concept that "taxes are evil", it is rare for us to form any sort of consensus about how to approach real tax reform. To begin, the platform does not call for any incremental tax reform concept or allow for any alternate form of taxation to replace a current system. Were one to hypothetically advocate replacing a 35% income tax with a 1% sales or property tax, many would argue that this position is in violation of the platform, as it violates the provision to oppose "the imposition of any new taxes."

At least at times, presidential candidates Browne, Russo, and Nolan supported some degree of radical modification to our current national tax system -- while Badnarik held steadfast to the constitutional line of "uniform tariffs and excises", which would also be likely to increase (under a non-libertarian congress) were the IRS ever totally eliminated. It is important to note that each of these candidates ran positions in conflict with the platform principal of "Government activity should not include the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights."

While I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, and am about as anti-tax as a person can get, the platform makes it difficult for any sort of alternate solution to be used by our candidates. Perhaps this issue will be addressed at the next LP Convention, as even most of my anarchist friends will support incremental tax reform, so long as it is truly incremental.

An interesting question is which type of taxation (either from the minarchist or interim anarchist view) most Libertarians prefer. Most taxes, if not all of them, benefit certain parties while depriving others, often disproportionately. Arguments abounding that elimination of the income tax would get rid of the IRS may be correct, but if the Fair Tax is enacted, aren't we going to meet a new breed of national sales tax goons? A national sales tax may have the advantage of encouraging people to earn a greater level of income, but it likewise has the detriment of discouraging sales. Would we simply be replacing the unreported income of today with black market products tomorrow?

Obviously, some party members support a national sales (consumption) tax as a replacement of the income tax. One clear advantage is that the amount taxed would be more apparent to the taxpayer.

The more constitutional-minded folks (and all of our recent presidential candidates) argue for excise taxes and tariffs. Some disadvantages are that these taxes are too transparent, and that they discourage free trade. To combine this concept with the national sales tax, Russo argued that a national sales tax is essentially the same as an excise tax, merely collected at the consumer end.

Flat (income) tax concepts are more inline with the platform, so long as they don't call for an overall tax increase. This creates another dilemma within the platform, however. As we "oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers", a flat tax at any rate other than zero percent (as there are many who do not pay income taxes) might be challenged.

Another concept provides an immediate knee jerk reaction from anti-taxers like me, but is worth a second look: Property taxes. The primary reason my knee jerks is that of all taxes, the property tax is the one I most hate to pay, and the one many of us tend to fight the most. However, Carl Milsted recently pointed out, ". . .property taxes are more visible; that's why people hate them. Taxes should be hateful."

Land-based taxation is the basis of geolibertarianism. The key argument seems to be:

"Private property derives its moral justification from the right of the individual to the fruits of his or her labor; but unlike houses, machinery, clothes, etc., land is (1) not the fruit of anyone's labor, (2) in fixed supply, and (3) the literal foundation upon which any exercise of individual liberty must take place. Thus, while there is a right to private possession of land, the right to possession must be limited by the equal right of others."

Income taxes discourage the earning of wages (or at least the reporting thereof) and consumption taxes discourage commerce (at least on the open market), and I am sure that property taxes will ultimately encourage squatting.

I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but am trying to raise some of the important questions. I'd sure you've heard the old cliche about what opinions are like. However, as a Libertarian, I'm sure you have more than just one (opinion, that is).

Posted by Shane Cory at 03:09 PM | Comments (114)

August 15, 2005

PA Legislators Give Themselves Pay Raises in the Dead of Night

How do you give yourself a pay raise if you're a politician in Pennsylvania?

Well if you're the Pennsylvania state legislature you do it during the midnight hours when you hope no one is watching. They raised their pay between 16 to 34 percent during a July midnight session right before leaving for summer vacation. With this pay raise, it makes them the highest paid legislators in the country with the exception of California.

Leadership received the largest increase in pay. The Speaker of the House and Senate President pro tempore received a 34 percent raise, while committee chairmen received a 28 percent raise. Rank-and-file legislators get the smallest increase at 16 percent.

To add insult to injury, the legislators found a way around a constitutional provision that prevents them from collecting a pay raise that is passed during the same term. Now the lawmakers can get their pay raise six months early by classifying it as "unvouchered expenses."

These hefty pay raises are in addition to the full pension and health benefits, cost-of-living pay increases and a $650 monthly allowance to lease a car. Lawmakers also receive a $128 per day expense allowance while in session. This, not to mention, the free health care, fully paid vision and dental coverage, free prescriptions, fully paid life insurance and long-term care insurance they receive, as reported in the American Spectator.

Unfortunately for these greedy Pennsylvania politicians, word spread quickly, and the incident has become a public outrage. Various websites have sprung up in response to the lofty pay raise. One site called Operation Clean Sweep at www.pacleansweep.com represents a group working to remove every incumbent in next year's election.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review came up with a clever way to protest the large pay raise. In a July 12 editorial they called on readers to cut out the pockets of an old pair of pants and send it to those legislators who voted for the pay increase.

Talk show radio host, Bob Durgin of WHP-AM already has over 12,000 signatures for a petition he started shortly after the pay raise was passed. He commented in the Patriot News: "What they did was throw gasoline on a campfire. Now it's a forest fire. I've been here since '89 and I've never seen anything like this. This is just a steamroller, and I think the lawmakers are just beginning to figure this out."

Pennsylvanians are mounting their opposition and will not let this pay raise stand without a fight. Let's hope they succeed in taking back their government.

Posted by Shane Cory at 12:43 PM | Comments (56)

August 12, 2005

LP Weekly Update - 8/12/05

Dear Friend,

We have had quite a bit of positive activity take place over the last several days. First and foremost, over this past weekend in Kansas City, the Libertarian National Committee voted to reduce membership dues from $25 per year to $0, effective Jan. 1, 2006.

The first question that many members have expressed over this change is, "Should I renew my membership before Jan. 1." Of course, our answer is a resounding "Yes!"

- With your renewal, you will continue with your subscription to LP News.

- Your renewal is important to your state's delegate allocation at the next national convention.

- We need your support now more than ever. By continuing your membership, you can show your support for the LP and help us make a smooth transition to zero dues.

The shift to a zero-dues structure will essentially move the National Libertarian Party from an organization heavily focused on membership to an organization that is focused on winning elections above all else. (See: http://www.lp.org/fp/article_173.shtml)

Along with passing the zero-dues proposal, the LNC instructed the national staff to develop plans and set aside funds to begin extensive training for members, state offices, campaign managers, activists and candidates. The areas of training will include: ballot access, FEC compliance, fundraising, database usage, member recruitment and candidate recruitment and training.

We have already begun preparation for this training and will have very exciting news to share with you in the coming months. Let me just say that we won't simply be putting together training manuals, but are working to create an intensive program that will greatly benefit the LP.

As I stated above, with our transition to zero-dues, your support is needed now more than ever. I urge you to join me in making a monthly pledge to the Libertarian Party. You may click here for more information or to set up your pledge, contact Jessica Neno Wilson at 202-333-0008 ext. 235 or send an e-mail to pledge@lp.org.

If you have any questions or concerns, the national staff is here to assist at your convenience. Give us a call at 202-333-0008 or simply send an e-mail to info@lp.org. We are here to serve you.

Best Regards,

Shane Cory
Chief of Staff (Acting)
National Libertarian Party

Posted by Shane Cory at 05:20 PM | Comments (100)

Bush and Congress Travel Down the Highway of Pork

by Matthew Dailey

President George W. Bush interrupted his five-week vacation on Wednesday to travel from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to Montgomery, Illinois to sign the enormous $286.4 billion transportation bill. The legislation stands at 1,000 pages and is laden with pork-barrel projects.

In his remarks during the signing event, Bush said this transportation bill will help America have "the most efficient, reliable transportation system in the world." Where the transportation funds where allocated does not reflect maintaining a world-class transportation system. For example, Alaska despite being the third least populated state it is the fourth largest recipient in pork barrel projects, as reported on FoxNews.com. One of Alaska's "special" projects include a $231 million bridge near Anchorage and planned to be named after the Congressman who brought home the bacon, Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. Don Young.

These pet projects reflected political influence not actual transportation needs. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas was able to get $330 million for the Centennial Corridor Loop in his home district. The so-called "Prairie Parkway" received $207 million courtesy of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. The parkway received funding even though the Illinois Department of Transportation has not even finished a study to determine if spending money on improvements is necessary.

This bloated transportation bill is the type of pork-barrel spending President Bush originally campaigned against back in 2000. He broke his campaign promise and has adopted the Republican Party's free-spending ways. Bush claims he held down spending in the bill by threatening to veto the original version which totaled a whopping $400 billion.

The billions of dollars Congress has spent on wasteful transportation projects should be returned to the states. It is on the state and local level where the decisions concerning transportation infrastructure are made. State and local governments can assess their transportation needs and allocate funds much better than the federal government.

President Bush and the Republican Congress have to stop leading us down the highway of financial disaster.

Posted by Shane Cory at 03:32 PM | Comments (30)

August 11, 2005

TSA Wants More of Your Privacy

by Matthew Dailey

There is a new initiative put forth by the Transportation Security Administration to collect more personal information from air passengers before boarding a plane. The TSA wants passengers to provide them with full names and birth dates. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in an USA Today interview, tells the public not to worry. He makes a comparison to getting a CVS drug-discount card, stating: "The average American gives information up to get a CVS card that is far more in-depth than TSA's going to be looking at." Going even far to make a statement in almost Orwellian in nature, "But I actually make the case that giving up a little bit of more information protects privacy." Passengers handing over more personal information to be entered into a government "secure" database so background checks can be performed will not protect privacy.

Airline passengers will not be required, but encouraged to participate in the Secure Flight initiative which begins testing this month. Chertoff says by participating in Secure Flight passengers can avoid an embarrassing situation where a secondary search of your belongings is performed with additional personal questions, "In the full view of everybody else." The federal government is using the fear of embarrassment into complying with the Secure Flight initiative, an underhanded tactic to get passengers to comply but still be able to claim it's voluntary.

This program could very well lead to TSA issuing identification cards to those travelers who provide extensive personal information and certified to having no terrorist ties or criminal warrants, as reported in USA Today. Chertoff has expressed strong support for such a program, arguing "I would hope that eventually a large number of people find their way into a trusted or vetted traveler program that allows them to move much more readily in and out of the country and within the country." This trusted traveler program will demand even more personal information from travelers while offering them shorter lines when boarding a plane.

This is another government anti-terrorism initiative that does not increase safety and only infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens. As Tim Sparapani, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union noted terrorists can easily get around background checks, either maintaining a clean criminal record or stealing someone's identity, as reported in USA Today. Sparapani further stated funds could be better utilized by spending money on machines to detect explosives on passengers or in bags.

The Secure Flight initiative is the second time the TSA has tried to collect more information from airline passengers. Last year a similar program called CAPPS II was stopped over the concern it was too intrusive. If the public consents to this program it will only embolden the federal government to invade our personal privacy even more down the road. TSA needs to end the Secure Flight initiative immediately and stop encroaching on the privacy rights of innocent Americans.

Posted by Shane Cory at 01:15 PM | Comments (82)

August 10, 2005

China teaches U.S. about Free-Market Capitalism

by Matthew Dailey

Last week the Chinese government-owned oil corporation, CNOOC ended its $18.5 billion bid to acquire the California-based energy corporation, Unocal. CNOOC withdrew its bid, not due to an insufficient offer, but to opposition by the U.S. government. In the Senate, politicians expressed concerns the takeover bid by a Chinese company could harm "U.S. jobs, energy production and energy security."

The Chinese government responded back with this statement: "We demand that the U.S. Congress correct its mistaken ways of politicizing economic and trade issues and stop interfering in the normal exchange between enterprises of the two countries." It has come to the point where the Chinese communist government is giving the U.S. a lesson in free-market capitalism.

Congress viewed CNOOC's takeover bid, not as a normal business transaction between two corporate entities, but as a way for the Chinese government to manipulate global oil supply and harm the American economy. Unocal's U.S. oil production contributes only 0.3 percent to U.S. petroleum consumption. In the unlikely situation the Chinese government was to hoard Unocal's oil supplies, it would not even have a measured effect on domestic oil prices. The globalization of energy markets prevents any one country from causing a major disruption to U.S. oil consumption. As Jerry Taylor from the Cato Institute commented: "America's vulnerability to oil supply disruptions is primarily related to how much oil we consume, not where the oil we consume happens to originate."

Congress' desire to spread democracy and free enterprise around the world rings hollow by voicing opposition to a foreign firm's attempt to buy an American business. For many years we have encouraged China to establish a free-market economy. Now the Chinese are starting to embrace capitalism and the economy is growing. The U.S. is afraid China will surpass it as the world's economic superpower. We cannot begin to resort to protectionism when faced with competition from foreign businesses. Congress should return to the free-market ideals that have made this country so successful and refrain from interfering in the affairs of energy companies, no matter if they are foreign or domestic.

Posted by Shane Cory at 01:39 PM | Comments (65)

August 09, 2005

NPR's Libertarian Message

By Stephen Gordon

For the more analytical among you (like me on some days), please read no further, as it will merely be a waste of your time. However, those of you who enjoy a bit of poetic styling might appreciate this piece from NPR. I'll add (sparing you from writing me many merciless e-mails and comments below): I do not, in any manner, support government funding for public broadcasting. That said; NPR ran a piece yesterday which speaks our message to an awful lot of people with whom we have not been doing such a good job connecting.

Entitled "Bars on Windows", Ruth Forman reads her very short story (95 seconds in RealPlayer or Windows Media) which portrays my vision of an inner-city child who lives in a very austere, underprivileged, and hopeless environment. This story primarily attacks our forbidding, cold and empty public education system; but it suggests that most people, especially the most disenfranchised among us, are living their lives hopelessly imprisoned in a bleak Orwellian world. In "Bars on Windows", the primary character Jorge clearly chooses the red pill:

"And why do we stand for this, he wondered. Why not move to some place where schools did not have bars on their windows. A place where people kept their doors open and unlocked and ready for company. Felt like more than keeping people out, they were locking themselves in, he thought."

As we all know, the system entraps a lot of people. While many of us are not natural libertarians, many are. It's always encouraging when some people just automatically get it.

"Bars on Windows" encouraged me to consider two pertinent questions:

1) What have I done today to connect with the Jorges' of the world? 2) What have I done today to connect with the disenfranchised who are not as enlightened as Jorge?

Jorge may never have heard the word libertarian, but he certainly seems to live by the concept. It's up to us to ensure that we connect with as many Jorges' as possible. After all, his dream is the same as ours:

"He didn't care what they said; bars on windows just didn't seem right."

We are the holders of society's "get out of jail free" cards. It is past time that we start passing them out in massive numbers.

Posted by Shane Cory at 06:12 PM | Comments (38)

August 08, 2005

Newly Signed Energy Bill Helps Special Interests

By Matthew Dailey

President Bush signed on Monday the long anticipated energy bill that was supposed to help curb America's enormous appetite for foreign oil. Instead the $14.5 billion bill only satisfied the appetite of special interests.

Midwestern corn producers were able to increase the amount of ethanol required of refiners to add to gasoline, going from 3.5 billion gallons in 2004 to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012, as reported on MSNBC.com. Adding more ethanol to gasoline will not cut energy demand but actually takes more energy to produce than it can deliver, according to Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

This new gasoline requirement is expected to cost car owners an additional 3 cents a gallon according to the Energy Department. Apparently the existing tax breaks for ethanol are not enough and corn producers need additional help from the federal government.

Corporations were not left out and receive generous subsidies in this energy bill. Electricity producers receive tax breaks and subsidies in research and development. It includes federal funds to help build new power plants that adhere to certain conditions.

The provision that could be the most costly is the $3.75 billion in loan guarantees for developing new energy technologies. If the new technology does not pan out the taxpayer foots the bill. During the first five years, the loan initiative will cover up to 60 percent of the risk of the default on the loans. After five years has passed there is no limit to the amount of loans that are guaranteed, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste. The end result could cost taxpayers several billions of dollars.

The federal government will also help the auto industry by spending $1.92 billion over five years on hydrogen fuel cell research despite the fact automakers are already developing hydrogen-powered vehicles.

This pork barrel energy bill is unwarranted and a complete waste of taxpayer's money. President Bush and Congress should be working towards freeing private enterprise from burdensome energy regulations, not doling out corporate subsidies and tax breaks.

Posted by Shane Cory at 04:18 PM | Comments (57)

August 04, 2005

No Wonder Most of the World Hates Us

By Stephen Gordon

Canadian Marc Emery was arrested last week in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He was not charged with any violation of Canadian law, however. You see, Emery is the publisher of the popular Cannabis Culture Magazine, producer of POT-TV, and ran the successful Marc Emery Direct marijuana seed company. The indictment from which the warrant was based (it included two other Emery Seeds employees) was issued the US by a federal Grand Jury as a result of DEA operations, and not because of Canadian law enforcement activities. To be sure, Canadian authorities were quite aware of Emery's activities for years and had never acted to halt them, although he had been arrested on non-related marijuana charges.

The three were charged with conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, conspiracy to distribute marijuana seeds, and money-laundering operations. Emery is currently out on bail awaiting an extradition hearing. It should come as no surprise that the DEA had wished for Emery to stay in Canadian jail until such time (reported as a year or more) as the extradition hearing was concluded. While DEA officials deny any political motivation for the arrests, Emery was the leader of the BC Marijuana Party (BCMP) and their offices were also raided as part of the arrest process.

Canadians are vocally upset about this situation and have been protesting since the arrest was made. Many are extremely concerned that Emery will be subjected to a draconian possible life sentence if convicted in the United States. In addition to the obvious implications of this expansion of the federal War on Drugs, the arrests raise another important question: Is Canada a sovereign country or merely the 51st US state?

Posted by Shane Cory at 05:16 PM | Comments (107)

August 03, 2005

Permanent Vacation?

We just released a press release regarding George W. Bush's lack of leadership in his willingness to go on a five-week vacation as our troops continue to fight and die in Iraq. Here's an excerpt:

On Wednesday, 14 Marines deployed to Iraq from Ohio were killed when their armored vehicle hit a roadside bomb. The attack is one of the deadliest attacks to take place in Iraq. Days earlier, six Marines from the same unit were killed in a fire-fight near Haditha. Meanwhile, Republican President George W. Bush set out yesterday to begin his five-week vacation in Crawford, Texas. The planned vacation will be the longest presidential getaway in 36 years (Richard Nixon spent over a month at his San Clemente estate in 1969). While Bush's aides and enablers defend the president's aggressive vacationing, it is simply poor leadership on the part of the Commander in Chief. While American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are disallowed from simply returning to the United States as scheduled and risks their lives in Iraq each day, the President of the United States enjoys the comfort and pleasures of his Crawford ranch.

Working vacation or not, President Bush's appearance of a leisurely lifestyle does not mesh with the leadership qualities of a "wartime president."

Posted by Shane Cory at 02:28 PM | Comments (102)

August 01, 2005

Will Bolton Move the United Nations in a Libertarian Direction?

Entry by Matthew Dailey

President Bush appointed John Bolton as the American envoy to the United Nations on Monday. Bush used his "recess appointment" power while Congress is on their five week break. The Bolton appointment has generated opposition from Democrats for his previous statements about the United Nations. Bolton once said if the 38-story United Nations building "lost 10 stories it would not make a bit of difference." He has also been accused of mistreating subordinates and misusing intelligence.

John Bolton is seen as a person who will work to reform the United Nations and is seen by critics as a controversial figure. He showed agreement with the Libertarian Party's opposition to U.S. participation in any international government by supporting the withdrawal of the United States from the International Criminal Court treaty.

I hope the new U.N. ambassador will work towards ending our involvement in the United Nations by at least not having American troops under U.N. command. We will have to wait and see if John Bolton moves the United States away from the United Nations and towards greater sovereignty.

Posted by Shane Cory at 02:47 PM | Comments (59)