The official blog of the Libertarian Party

« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 27, 2007

Going Green: How to Regulate a Trend

To prompt this, I wanted to try something different with the blog on Friday. Instead of reposting an article from a new site, I'd present to you an opinion piece for discussion. These may be a bit edgier than the news articles, but that's how good debate is started. If you guys have any suggestions for topics, please email me at Andrew.davis@lp.org.

Going Green: How to Regulate a Trend

Tie-dye. Slap bracelets. Pogs. And now, 'going green.' What do these things have in common? All are trends that have swept the nation at one point in time. At first glance, the environmental movement may seem to be an odd pick for a fashionable trend; however, the green movement has certainly become vogue.

Last month, Al Gore hosted a worldwide "Live Earth" concert with the goal of raising awareness about global warming. Before the performances began, some carriers showed interviews with people in the green movement about the little things they could do at home to help offset their "carbon-footprint." One man interviewed showed the camera crew around his house, displaying upholstery from old sweaters and other "environmentally friendly" household goods.

But 'going green' has influenced more than just interior decorating. The trend has influenced what car you drive, how you commute, what light bulbs to use, to what type of foods you eat. Just the other day, John Edwards' wife discussed how she was giving up tangerines to fight global warming. Even bottled water is now being called an environmental hazard that increases global warming.

Despite the salience the movement has created for itself, all of these things are based upon the presumption that global warming is real, and furthermore, that humans largely impact it.

In the complicated global warming debate, one thing is certain: For every scientist that says global warming is real, there is another that flatly denies a human impact. It is rather frightening how an influential global movement can be based upon something as unproven as global warming. The real question then becomes not so much if global warming exists or not, but whether or not the surge of global warming regulation should come form something that may be nothing more than a fad.

The consequences are quite serious. Society must ask itself what type of regulation is warranted in this situation, and the government must decide what is appropriate.

However, in spite of the threats of toxic smog covering the earth, the answer seems relatively clear.

Regulation can exist in two forms both completely different in nature, but still achieving the same end result. One type of regulation is governmental, and the other is economic. No matter the form, regulation always attempts to manipulate a behavior to fit a desired model. However, the type of regulation will determine how that end result is achieved by determining the mode of operation for the regulation.

In government regulation, the targeted behavior is manipulated through the use of restrictions on how an entity may act, with fines and punishments for deviating from the desired behavior. This can come from laws at all levels of the government, but all are authoritarian at the core and come at the expense of the freedom of a business to operate how it chooses.

The other form of regulation is market regulation. While there may be punishments on the entity for not adapting to the desired behavior, the transition is purely voluntary. Therefore, the punishment only comes if the business voluntarily refuses to change.

This balance of regulation is constantly debated in issues such as schooling. Does authoritarian government regulation, which imposes punishments on schools for not performing, have better results than a school suffering a profit loss form parents removing children for poor school performance? While the answer is certainly debatable, the latter option at least comes by choice rather than by edict.

Based on this, how should society react to global warming and the companies accused of contributing to the problem?

On one side, you can argue the government should regulate the business with harsh punishments and fines for not adhering to strict laws written to help reduce carbon emissions. This would require the government to regulate a private business based upon the assumption that: global warming is indeed real, humans exacerbate the problem and this particular company is a significant human contributor.

Is it proper that government should regulate a business based upon this large of an assumption? Does society really want to risk this?

The other form or regulation, market regulation, would avoid such a risk.

Under market regulation, consumers could withdraw support from companies it saw as contributing to something they see as a problem. As a result, the company would have the freedom to decide whether or not it wanted to react to consumer demands. It would not require government interference in the private sector, and would maintain laissez-faire principles in dealing with what is still a highly contested problem.

Without a doubt, there is a serious problem on the horizon, especially as the green-trend picks up more steam and governments seem to be caught up in the hysteria. And with initiatives like the "Clear-Skies Act," which would create more pollution than it would solve, the government appears not to be the best solution. Additionally, for what is undoubtedly a problem far in the future, if indeed a problem exists at all, a fraction of the population demanding immediate government resolution has garnered way too much power. And like all political factions warring for change, liberty is usually the first casualty.

The rational approach to global warming is having government take their hands off the issue, and give it back to the people that care most fervently about it. If the people have the power to transform the 'going green' trend into a real economic force, then they will be able to achieve their goal through the free market, just as they would through government regulation. It may take a little longer, but in the end, it will be a free choice for businesses to make.

After all, nobody would want to be forced to wear bell-bottoms.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 12:56 PM | Comments (93)

July 26, 2007

Bush Faces Criticism on al Qaeda Claims

I blogged yesterday that Bush was already facing stiff opposition to some of the claims he made regarding al Qaeda in Iraq during a trip to Charleston, SC earlier this week. Yesterday, the chief US intelligence analyst for international terrorism painted a vastly different picture from Bush's 'stay the course' message used for drumming up support for the invasion in Iraq.

A day after President Bush sought to present evidence showing that Iraq is now the main battlefront against Al Qaeda, the chief US intelligence analyst for international terrorism told Congress that the network's growing ranks in Pakistan and Afghanistan pose a more immediate threat to the United States.

In rare testimony before two House committees, Edward Gistaro, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said that Al Qaeda terrorists operating in South Asia are better equipped to attack the United States than the network's followers in Iraq are.

Asked which arm of Al Qaeda concerned him the most, Gistaro told a joint session of the House armed services and intelligence panels that it was South Asia.

"The primary concern is in Al Qaeda in South Asia organizing its own plots against the United States," he said. Al Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks from its bases in Afghanistan.

More terrorism experts have gone public in response to the President's latest speech, prompting discussion about how upfront the Bush administration is being with the American public.

Abraham Wagner, a senior researcher at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism at Columbia University, called Bush's speech about the Al Qaeda threat in Iraq a "spin job."

"In the Cold War it was called 'threat lumping,' " Wagner said. "It is creating a threat to justify what you are doing. Al Qaeda in Iraq never existed prior to the US activity in Iraq and I think it is still a small operation."

"It is unfortunate," he added, that "the administration, in their last gasp to justify what they are doing, are inventing threats and misrepresenting what they are getting from the intelligence community."

You can read the full article here.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 10:55 AM | Comments (4)

July 25, 2007

Bush "Connects" Iraqi al Qaeda to 9/11

As Bush's numbers continue to tank, with some suggesting he may be the most unpopular president in American history, the president continues to attempt trumping up support for his war in Iraq.

President Bush made provocative new assertions Tuesday about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq, using recently declassified information to make his case that the global battle with the terrorism network -- and Americans' safety at home -- hinges on keeping U.S. troops there to fight.

Honestly, this is no surprise whatsoever. Since the invasion began in 2003, the administration has always resorted to propagandist tactics in order to stir up lagging support. But this time, it's not working.

Bush's comments were met with skepticism by some terrorism experts and former U.S. intelligence officials, who said the president exaggerated or even misrepresented the facts in Iraq.

Many of those dissenting are former terrorism experts from current and previous administrations.

"I think what the president is saying is in some sense fundamentally misleading," said Robert Grenier, former head of the counter-terrorism center at the CIA as well as the agency's mission manager for the war in Iraq. "If he means to suggest the invasion of Iraq has not created more jihadists bent on killing Americans, and that if Iraq hadn't been there as a magnet they would have been attracted somewhere else, that's completely disingenuous."

Another former counter-terrorism official agrees:

Rand Beers, a former senior Bush and Clinton administration counter-terrorism official, said Bush was exaggerating the connections.

"There is no question that he is oversimplifying what is happening there in Iraq," Beers said.

But despite strong objections from experts in terrorism, as well as failing to release the source of this "declassified information," Bush continues to make his case for Iraq as eloquently as he can:

"If we were not fighting these Al Qaeda extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity," Bush said. "Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere, in Afghanistan or other foreign capitals or on the streets of our own cities."

Yes, Mr. President, I'm pretty sure if Osama Bin Laden was in the United States, you would not find him volunteering his weekends at the local Salvation Army. At least we agree there.

However, Bush is naive to think that al Qaeda is being bogged down in Iraq and unable to focus elsewhere, thanks to his costly invasion. This couldn't be further from the truth. The TSA is reporting suspicious seizures from people in the airport, which seem to suggest terrorists are planning 'dry runs' in preparation for a terror attack.

Bush appears to be overly optimistic to believe the same rhetoric still has an effect on the American public. But, with an anemic Congress that has a track record of failure, who is to stop him?

Posted by Andrew Davis at 11:10 AM | Comments (2)

July 23, 2007

The Great Society (of the 21st Century)

Once upon a time in United States, working actually had some economic risk to it. If you lost your job, you were racing against the clock to find another before real financial hardships set in. That was your motivation for finding another job. It instilled a golden work ethic in people.

But today, it's much different, especially if you lose your job to outsourcing:

Under a Senate bill to be introduced today, computer programmers, call-center staffers and other service-sector workers who make up the vast majority of the nation's workforce would for the first time be eligible for a generous package of income, health and retraining benefits currently reserved for manufacturing workers who lose their jobs to international trade.

Their intent?

Democrats say the expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program would begin to reweave the social safety net for the 21st century

Last year, the government spent close to $1.1 billion dollars on the TAA program, and the proposed changes would double this figure.

If their applications are approved, workers can receive two years of benefits on top of state unemployment payments, which typically last six months. The benefits include income support payments, job training, job search and relocation assistance, and a tax credit that covers 65 percent of monthly health-insurance premiums. Workers over 50 who take a new job at lower pay are eligible for wage insurance, which makes up half the difference between their old salary and the new one, up to a maximum of $5,000 a year, for two years.

The government approved petitions covering around 400,000 workers although less than 100,000 received benefits. However, new proposals would open the program to many new workers:

Baucus's proposal, in addition to extending benefits to service workers, would eliminate the rule that reserves benefits for jobs lost to U.S. trading partners. Help would be available for any worker whose job moves anywhere overseas. The bill also would streamline the application process for hard-hit industries, allowing the Labor Department to certify workers industry-wide.

Fortunately, the White House seems to be at least a little skeptical of the bill; however, it remains to be seen if it has the backbone to stand up to Congress, especially if the bill passes with strong bipartisan support. Previously, the White House supported reauthorizing the program.

Last week, White House spokesman Tony Fratto declined to comment on the Democratic proposals for expansion, except to question their cost and the wisdom of covering service workers. With those job losses, he said, "it becomes impossible to draw lines that show the displacement is owing to trade."

So, the discussion boils down to this: Does the government have an obligation or responsibility to provide for the citizens who lose their job to free trade?

Posted by Andrew Davis at 11:19 AM | Comments (20)

Story Updates

Here are a few stories that are updates from previous blog entries that you may be interested in:

Subsidies to dead people

The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributed $1.1 billion over seven years to the estates or companies of deceased farmers and routinely failed to conduct reviews required to ensure that the payments were properly made, according to a government report.

In a selection of 181 cases from 1999 to 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that officials approved payments without any review 40 percent of the time.

Healthcare "reform" still looming

On Sunday, House Democrats said that they would unveil their bill in the next few days and that they expected to push it through the House next week, before Congress leaves town for a monthlong summer recess.

Under the bipartisan Senate plan, the federal government would increase spending on children's coverage by $35 billion over the next five years, for a total of $60 billion. House Democrats want to increase spending by $50 billion, which is 10 times the increase sought by Mr. Bush.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 10:21 AM | Comments (3)

July 19, 2007

House Meekly Attempts Subsidy Reform

In what seems to be the norm for Congress, a House Agriculture Committee voted Wednesday on a bill that meekly attempts a reform of farm subsidies:

The House Agriculture Committee voted Wednesday to ban federal subsidies to farmers with incomes averaging more than $1 million a year and stop farmers from collecting payments for multiple properties.

-Boost support for fruit and vegetable producers, including research and marketing assistance and increased government purchases.
-Reauthorize federal nutrition programs, including food stamps.
-Increase subsidies for some conservation programs that pay farmers to protect environmentally sensitive land.
-Provide loan guarantees for ethanol refineries.

While the House committee should be commended for at least taking a step in the right direction, albeit a baby step, they are still a long ways away from making the badly needed corrections in a system that typifies wasteful government spending. Even though the bill would drop the income limit for subsidies, it would increase the maximum limit on direct payments, which are farm subsidies not based on production or prices.

Although the bill only scratches the surface of the problems with farm subsidies, some in the House felt this is the most they could do:

Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said the proposal "is a sound compromise that no one is satisfied with but nonetheless represents real reform."

The projected savings are a scant $226 million over five years, or an average of $45.2 million a year, barely covering the travel expenses of Nancy Pelosi.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns called the bill a "missed opportunity" for a significant overhaul. Johanns and the Bush administration had previously proposed changes that would have limited subsidies to farmers making below $200,000 yearly. This would have undoubtedly created huge government savings and been the most significant reform to farm subsidies in years, if not ever.

"It will do very little to make our agriculture policies more equitable, will not address the real challenges we face at the WTO, and it will not do anything to help our farmers produce for the market rather than for the government paycheck," said Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.

At least the guy making $1.2 million a year farming from production and subsidies will have to either cut back production or risk losing his government pacifier. After all, the guys making only $900,000 a year in farming are the real people about to lose their shirts if prices drop.

Kind, Johanns and other critics say tight budgets and recent high prices for corn and other crops create an opportunity to save money on farm programs. Farm groups say they still need a safety net if prices drop.

These people don't want a safety net. They want a buffer from the free market.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 12:01 PM | Comments (21)

July 18, 2007

The Federal Government Gets into Tobacco

Usually government is sneaky with pick pocketing you clean. They'll normally just reach in and pluck your wallet, and leave it at that. But with new tobacco legislation coming up, they may be going for the full monty. Yesterday, news outlets were reporting on a bill that could possibly raise taxes on cigars by over 20,000 percent. The bill would allow the federal government to raise taxes by 5 cents to $10--PER CIGAR!

As part of an increase in tobacco taxes designed to pay for children's health insurance, the nickel-per-cigar tax that has ruled the industry could rise to as much as $10 per cigar.

Call this the government stealing your wallet.

However, today it is being reported that legislation also aims to give the government full control over regulating the quality of cigarettes:

The Senate committee that oversees public health is expected to approve a proposal Wednesday that would give the government authority over tobacco products for the first time. If the bill becomes law, the Food and Drug Administration would receive new power to crack down on advertising aimed at children, add stronger warning labels to tobacco products and reduce dangerous ingredients used in cigarettes. Although similar proposals failed to pass as recently as 2005, analysts say the bill's chances have dramatically improved now that Democrats control both the House and Senate.

Call this the government now stealing from your shirt pocket.

This new regulation is bad in two different ways. First, this step adds a whole new level to the meaning "nanny state." The health risks of cigarettes have been common knowledge beat into our heads since primary school. But guess what? People still smoke anyways. That's why groups like "Whadafxup" are so useless. People know smoking is bad; they just don't care.

Secondly, this is bad for the consumer because it creates a de facto monopoly for Phillip Morris, who, coincidently, supports this legislation.

"Under this proposal they can basically lock in their market share and make it much more difficult for their competitors to promote their products to adults," said Steve Kottak, a spokesman for Reynolds American, which makes Camel brand cigarettes. The Winston-Salem, N.C.-based company is the second largest tobacco company in the U.S.

Phillip Morris' competitors have referred to this bill as the "Marlboro monopoly act," after Phillip Morris' top selling brand of cigarettes. Democrats are never short on talent for creating politics' biggest ironies. For as much as they hate "monopolies" like Microsoft and Walmart, they sure don't take issue with creating artificial monopolies that would otherwise not exist. In the words of Ayn Rand:

"Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action."

Apparently, Congress has forgotten that cigarette companies don't make health products, and they really don't care about obvious health hazards. After all, why should they? When the market starts to reflect a growing trend that smokers want a healthier cigarette and begin buying less, cigarette companies will react. Regulating the safety of cigarettes takes choice out of the hands of consumers and creates an artificial market environment that benefits only the companies prepared financially to adapt to the new changes, which is in this case, Phillip Morris.

If FDA gains oversight of tobacco, companies would have to submit any new products that claim to have safety benefits to the government for scientific evaluation. After investing more than $300 million in a new research facility to develop safer tobacco products, analysts say Philip Morris is more prepared than competitors to conduct large-scale studies that would be needed to gain FDA approval of such products.

So, it would appear that between a potential $10 tax on cigars, and legislation that turns over cigarette quality control to the Feds, the government has decided to enter into the tobacco business.

While 'Smoking Fascists' may cheer because consumers are no longer allowed to chose for themselves what they put in their lungs, and Phillip Morris cheers their government-assisted takeover of the cigarette market, the little guys get the shaft. Nobody knows this tragic reality more than people like Eric Newman, whose family has rolled premium cigars in Florida for several decades.

"Why don't we just go out of business?" Newman said. "Here, you can run our company, Mr. Government."

Ahhh, nothing like the refreshing smell of communism.

"Things happen strangely in Washington," Newman said.

Mr. Newman, you have no idea.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 12:25 PM | Comments (20)

July 17, 2007

D.C. Gun Ban to Supreme Court?

Residents of the nation's capitol should soon have a resolution to the iron fisted gun ban in the city, which has existed for more than 30 years. After being struck down in March by a 2 to 1 decision in the US Court of Appeals, the city has decided it wants to take the fight all the way to the highest court in the land. The court hasn't ruled on a Second Amendment case since 1939.

Essentially, the law banned all handguns that weren't registered before 1976.

The appeals panel ruled in March that the District has a right to regulate and require registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks.

What was the reasoning behind the gun ban? The same as it is with any other ban: Guns, legally owned or not, cause crime. However, if the D.C. mayor had kept his eye on this, then maybe he'd realize that guns themselves don't cause crime. But that's asking for reason and logic; something gun-grabbers don't know anything about.

"The handgun ban has saved many lives and will continue to do so if it remains in effect," Fenty said. "Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, 'Mayor Fenty, you've got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.' "

It's scary these people run cities.

The Supreme Court taking up this case, which it hasn't yet decided if it will or not, is an amazing chance for gun rights advocates.

Experts say gun rights advocates have never had a better chance for a major Second Amendment victory, because a significant number of justices on the Supreme Court have indicated a preference for the individual-rights interpretation.

A ruling upholding the US Appeals Court decision would be a monumental victory that would knock down other restrictive gun laws across the US. But, gun control advocates are just as excited:

"If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear this case, it could produce the most significant Second Amendment ruling in our history," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. "If the U.S. Supreme Court follows the words of the U.S. Constitution and the Court's own precedents, it should reverse the Appeals Court ruling and allow the District's law to stand."

Apparently the Brady Center doesn't have any copies of the Constitution on hand or they might be a little more fearful of the original intent of the Second Amendment, which countless historical surveys show the philosophy behind the Amendment most definitely suggested the founding fathers believed gun rights to belong to individuals.

"Any accurate, unbiased reading of American history is going to come down to this being an individual right," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "To deny people the right to own a firearm in their home for personal protection is simply out of step with the Constitution."

The gun ban will still remain in effect until a final resolution is found on the matter. The city has until Sept. 5 to file their appeal with the Supreme Court. Hopefully then, D.C. residents will finally be allowed to own handguns in one of the most dangerous cities in America, where "driving while armed" is harder to get out of than "driving while intoxicated."

Ironic, isn't it?

Posted by Andrew Davis at 11:27 AM | Comments (6)

July 16, 2007

Court Victory Against Income Tax

Many Libertarians, especially the more "militant" ones (I use that word with a tone of endearment, not spite), long for the days when the Boston Tea Party would be called an act of patriotism. In this day and age, when vocal dissent of government policies are often called un-American, such rebellious acts against the government will undoubtedly have you labeled a traitor on Hannity and Colmes.

But today, I'm proud to announce that maybe those days are here again, and the modern day Boston Tea Party is manifested in things such as this:

A Shreveport attorney who has challenged the government for years on the legality of filing federal income taxes has been acquitted on charges he failed to file returns.

Let me clarify, the LP doesn't endorse actively breaking the law as a means of political dissent; however, we can still cheer for those that have successful outcomes when they do. Of course, Ed Brown is still holed up NH, and we wish him the best. But, Tom Cryer, the attorney in this recent objection to income tax, has scored a substantial victory against taxes:

"The court could not find a law that makes me liable or makes my revenues taxable," Cryer said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. When you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it."

Cryer says he stopped filing returns more than 10 years ago after he investigated claims that income tax was a sham. He contends the law doesn't actually tax personal earning.

The best part about all of this is just the simple logic and philosophy behind it. It's my money, and the government will not get me to give it to them.

"What I earned was my own personal labor. I am giving something in exchange. I'm giving my property and I don't belong to anyone else."

Beautiful.

Whether or not the IRS will appeal is dubious. They probably won't. I doubt they'll run the risk of this same thing happening in a higher court, where the ruling will set a greater precedent, and the decision would impact a larger group of people.

Also, you can read a legal brief assembled by Cryer and submitted for his case.

You can read more about the trial here and here (just scroll down to find them).

Posted by Andrew Davis at 11:56 AM | Comments (10)

July 13, 2007

Tax Reform and the Sisyphus of Congress

Taxes and death: the two certainties of life. Well, not exactly. At least with death you know how it works and what's going to happen when it's time for it to come. Taxes on the other hand are a labyrinth of codes and regulations that you can never be too sure if you're lost or on the right track. And whatever the case may be, you always lose.

Now enter Sen. Jon Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and the unlikely protagonist in this little saga:

Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat, has not received the memo explaining that Congress can accomplish nothing in an election year or the year before one. He calls himself the Senate's designated driver, the one not running for president, so he has time to try legislating. He also is the Senate's Sisyphus, determined to roll the boulder of tax reform up Capitol Hill yet again.

Wyden wants a tax reform, but not in the traditional "Tax and Spend" way, typical of his pork-loving colleagues in the Senate found on both sides of the aisle. Wyden actually wants real reform to counter the billions of hours Americans spend on a tax code that even CPAs sometimes scratch their heads when trying to figure out.

Under Wyden's plan, all Americans--and all corporations--would use a one-page form. There would be three rates (15, 25 and 35 percent) instead of today's six (10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35) for individuals, and a single rate for corporations. The alternative minimum tax, which this year will ensnare 23 million taxpayers, would be abolished. The standard deductions (currently $5,000 for single filers, $10,000 for married couples) would be tripled. No fool he, Wyden flinches from severe flatness that would end the most popular deductions, for mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

He calls this plan the "Fair Flat Tax Act," and would reduce the mountains of paperwork into a single form. Brilliant. This guy deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for decreasing the threats of death hurled at anyone sporting an IRS identification card.

Granted, there are still several issues with this plan. Like the article states, while Wyden is more of a egalitarian, business-friendly liberal, but at least this a step in the right direction that can open the door to negotiations with real conservatives left in Congress who want to cut more taxes.

Liberalism's favorite four-letter F word--"fair"--always bedevils tax reform. Liberals want to redistribute wealth, the creation of which they impede. Although Wyden is basically a business-friendly liberal, he has a concept of fairness that arguably tilts toward egalitarian outcomes more than is conducive to economic growth and hence to happiness and equity. But if conservatives and liberals could agree on flatter, simpler taxing, various distributive outcomes could be negotiated.

The thing with the current tax system is that nobody likes it except the savvy shysters who furtively manipulate it to benefit themselves. But even though nobody likes it, reform would be a dramatic change to the comfortable status quo, and our Congress rarely has the spine to point out the elephant in the room--no matter how bad it may smell (case in point: Iraq). So few would dare to undertake the challenge. Plus, Republicans have become so used to fiscal irresponsibility that they've now entered into the jadedness of Democrats, rendering them unable to comprehend how taxing tax codes really are.

But tax reform is going to be an issue sooner or later, as that Bush's tax cuts expire in four years. And the longevity of any real reform is dubious. Even if a reform were to occur, you still have the problem with Congressman, who tend to screw up every good thing the government rarely accomplishes.

Still, K Street, and the political culture that sustains it, are durable facts. That is why, in the unlikely event that anything like the Wyden plan is adopted, 20 years and 14,000 complications later some other Senate Sisyphus will have to put a shoulder to the boulder.

I suppose this is why Will refers to Wyden as the Sisyphus of Congress. He may get the boulder nearly to the top of the hill, but it is almost certain Congress will knock it back down soon thereafter.

You can read the full Newsweek article here.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 12:05 PM | Comments (46)

July 11, 2007

New Medical Reform in the Works

I'm rather nostalgic for the time when I was jaded by the loyalty to the Republican Party and I couldn't see the bleak outlook for our future. Now the veil has been lifted, and I'm scared. I am seriously scared for the future of the country, especially after reading articles like this one from a writer at the Heritage Foundation:

With the support of the Bush administration, or at least with its acquiescence, Congress appears on course to enact a huge new entitlement aimed at middle-income Americans. President Bush likely will sign whatever bill emerges. As Nancy-Ann DeParle, a Medicare administrator for President Clinton, puts it, "In signing it, as he will surely be forced to do, he will preside over the biggest expansion of government health benefits since the Great Society."

And what exactly does Congress have in mind? Oh…just an entitlement program for middle-income seniors with an expected budget of $400 billion over the next 10 years. Well, this is what people think it will cost; however, since technically it is an entitlement program, there is no definite budget for it.

Moreover, evidence from both the private and public sectors in recent years suggests that future costs will likely exceed projections. But even if they're accurate, it isn't the next 10 years that matter. It's the years after that, when the full force of the baby boom generation hits Medicare and Social Security.

Why are they doing this? Well, this time it's not to defeat the terrorists. Rather, it's to help the seniors through the tough times of old age, when they either have to choose between the heating bills or prescriptions.

Excuse me while I fetch my violin.

What Congress seems to forget is that this isn't exactly the problem they make it out to be. This, of course, on top of the fact that it isn't a problem Congress should be dealing with in the first place. The article states most seniors already have private healthcare plans, and most at reasonable prices (funny how the private market works).

To be sure, many lower-income elderly do need help. But today about three-quarters of all seniors already have private insurance against onerous costs.

Another funny mechanism of the private market is that it doesn't like regulations and controls put on it. Congress has also neglected to remember the history of the last time they tried to do something like this:

Hard lessons from the past suggest that few private plans will join the program. Mass withdrawals of plans from the existing Medicare+Choice program show what happens when Congress imposes regulations and controls in an effort to cut costs.

Adding:

When Congress last tried to provide a drug benefit that jeopardized coverage many seniors already had (in 1988) the backlash was so severe that Congress repealed the legislation within a few months.

It's ironic how in just eight years the Republican Party, who used to pride themselves in the days of Reagan on their vast knowledge of the free market, have completely rejected any philosophical or practical application of market economics. Democrats never had any sense about these things.

But rather that take a firm leadership role in the legislative process, President Bush sent Congress a framework and invited lawmakers to fill in the details. The result was predictable. The process is becoming a political feeding frenzy, in which short-term partisan advantage trumps responsible action. Today's politicians may reap the benefits, but future generations will have to pay for this unforgivable failure of leadership.

The whole "compassionate conservative" shtick Bush must be using to justify more entitlement programs is starting to cost him support. He's only got 29 percent of the nation left behind him now. Hopefully, voters will soon wizen up and put a Libertarian in office with the brains and the brawn to put America back on track.

So, with the Democrats proposing bills that will surely cause the tax burden to explode, and Republicans putting the rubber stamp on them like sheep being led to the slaughter, you can understand my trepidation about the future. One can only wonder in 20 years, how much of your paycheck you'll actually get to see before the government takes it out of your pocket to pay for mistakes like these.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 11:20 AM | Comments (22)

July 10, 2007

Press Recognizes LP Success

The media is finally realizing that the Libertarians are on to something. Today, the Washington Times published an article about party affiliation trends after a press release sent from LNC headquarters hailed the rising number of LP members, coupled with decreasing numbers from the main two parties.

Polls show that fewer Americans are calling themselves Republicans or Democrats and the number of Americans unaffiliated with either party has reached an all-time high--good news for Libertarians, say officials of the nation's third-largest party.

What could cause this? Oh, perhaps extreme incompetence and corruption coming from the main two parties. That, and their creepy dedication to eradicating liberty in America. It seems Americans are now viewing the LP as the only party that actually likes freedom and can get things done.

LNC Executive Director Shane Cory had this to say about the numbers:

"What we're seeing recently is Republicans and Democrats are only interested in maintaining their own power," he said. "You have Republicans standing by their president during this occupation in Iraq while Democrats sit idly by and watch the Republicans self-destruct."

The numbers show very distinct trends for all three parties:

The Rasmussen poll-conducted in May with a sample of 15,000 adults-found that the percentage identifying themselves as Republicans (30.8 percent) dropped for the fourth consecutive month, while the percentage of Democrats (36.3 percent) decreased for the third straight month, following trends that began for Republicans in the middle of 2005 and Democrats in January 2006.

All in all, this is wonderful news for Libertarians because it shows the press that the Party is here to stay. And, not only are we staying, we're making ourselves at home with the other two parties.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 02:54 PM | Comments (19)

The Definition of Rights

Every single political discussion can be boiled down into one simple question: Is it my right? While often issues of politics involve massive amounts of detail, philosophy, data and opinion, the general premise of every argument relates to the basic definition of rights. Do I have a right to healthcare? Do I have a right to education? Do I have a right to be secure in my possessions? Do I have a right to privacy within my own home?

All of these questions have been asked since the framing of the constitution, and they are still asked today. But, the determination of what is and isn't a right has a large impact on everyone. It determines what the government can and can't do, as well as to what services citizens are guaranteed.

One would think that determining what is a right and what is simply an entitlement would be easy. However, just looking at the issue of universal healthcare, this assumption proves not to be the case. Proponents of universal healthcare say that access to affordable healthcare is a right of all Americans. Yet opponents say healthcare is a luxury available only to those who can afford such.

Who is right?

In order to determine this, we must first establish what is a "right." A common argument is that a right is whatever a person should be granted because it seems like they should. Such things would include healthcare, education and a comfortable lifestyle. After all, we are Americans, aren't we, and should be entitled to such things?

However, there is a serious flaw in this structure of a right. To believe a right is something that should be granted turns the right into a normative value, instead of a positive value. When a right is determined via normative constraints, it means the right ceases to be unalienable because it is then contingent upon the actions of another thing. A right, in its pure form, is independent of all other variables. A right simply is, and is not something that "should" be. A right is a positive value, not a normative one.

Take a look at some of America's most fundamental rights: the right to free speech; the right to worship, or not worship, how ones chooses; the right to bear arms. All of these rely on the actions of no other person in order to be fulfilled. Now look at what others call modern day rights. The right to healthcare is dependent upon a doctor to treat you. The right to education requires a teacher or school to instruct you. Without a doctor, or without a school, that right disappears. Would this then make it more of an entitlement rather than a right?

Secondly, an action cannot be a right when it requires the compulsion of another individual in order to fulfill that right. A right to healthcare requires that a doctor treat you regardless of how he feels. This violates his right to render his services how he chooses. One right ends where another begins, and requiring another individual to act in the establishment of a right is an overlap that simply cannot exist.

Granted, there are a few rights that do require the compulsion of others. In fact, the three basic elements of government do this. Citizens do have a right to protection from foreign invaders, a right to a fair judicial system, and a right to be protected domestically. However, these are constitutional rights rather than what we were discussing before, which could be called the 'rights of man.' Constitutional rights are guaranteed as long as the Constitution remains as the supreme law of the land, and it grants no other rights than what is explicitly written in the document.

The understanding of rights in these terms puts political arguments about rights on a very objective scale. If one can objectively analyze what one may call a right, then this eliminates political or personal bias, and can allow the argument to progress with a logical foundation.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 11:53 AM | Comments (24)

July 09, 2007

California Blocked From Looting

Last month, in what is one of the few court decisions to come out of California that actually supports the Constitution, a U.S. District court judge placed an injunction on a California program that seized "dormant" assets the state believed to be "abandoned." One of the victims of the program, Richard Valdes, had $25,000 worth of stocks in an escrow fund seized 15 years ago that he had set aside and simply forgotten about. He says today the stocks are estimated to be valued around $100,000.

Valdes is one of millions of people who have seen their financial accounts and safe-deposit boxes drained under the state's "unclaimed property" law, which generates about $400 million in annual revenue for Sacramento, according to the state controller's office.

And how does the state find these assets? They pay auditors to search through financial records to find abandoned accounts. These financial "bounty-hunters" are paid 6 to 12 percent of what they find. I assume the state also has a department poised to start looting after an earthquake, given this is just about the same in principle.

But it isn't just that the state steals property from citizens that makes this program a horrid attack on liberty, it's also how they go about doing it. The state eliminated a task-force that alerted owners their property was about to be seized, and also reduced the amount of time an account can sit dormant before it is fair-game for the state to acquire:

The locator unit was disbanded around 1985, and through the 1990s and the early part of this decade the Legislature steadily reduced the amount of money the controller could spend on notifying owners of unclaimed assets. In 2003, it eliminated the state's obligation to pay interest on new claims from property holders.

Californians were also given less time to claim their property before it was seized by the state. In 1977, the so-called escheat period — the amount of time an account could be inactive before being turned over to the state — was reduced from 15 to seven years. It is now three years.

The state currently has about $5.1 billion dollars from acquisitions of unclaimed assets.

Fortunately for the citizens of the People's State of California, the 9th Circuit of Appeals-normally the scourge of liberty for that area of the country-decided the program violated due process mandated by the Constitution that ensures citizens are secure in their private property.

On April 30, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal district court decision, sending the case back to Shubb with instructions to grant a preliminary injunction that temporarily halted the state's sale of unclaimed property. The appeals court noted that citizens have a due-process right to be notified of the possible loss of their property.

The whole situation is entirely bizarre and corrupt. I'm assuming this started out as a relatively benign operation (although I fail to see how state-sponsored theft can be nonviolent in any situation), but over the years it was slowly adapted into a revenue generator for the state. This seems to be obvious from the state's scramble to replace the money that the program generated, which had been built into the budget years ago.

The entire article can be found here if you want to read more on what is just another example of how California is nearing a full-on encounter with socialism.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 12:26 PM | Comments (11)

July 06, 2007

New LNC Staff Member

Over the past few days, many of you have seen the name Andrew Davis pop up on the blog. For those of you who haven't Googled me yet, I've been working here at the LNC headquarters for around a week now as the new Media Coordinator, and I'd like to issue a few words of greeting and take the time to properly introduce myself.

I'm a native of Myrtle Beach, SC., and I just graduated from Clemson University with a B.S. degree in Political Science. At Clemson, I was heavily involved in school, state and national politics. By the end of my four years there, I had become the political figurehead on campus. From protests to raffles of AK-47s (technically a WASR-10, but the media didn't understand this), it seemed the groups I led were in and out of the headlines monthly. Even as I was graduating, I was fighting in the state media to legalize concealed carry on public school campuses.

Admittedly, I was raised a Democrat, and then transformed into a militant Republican when I was really old enough to understand what was going on and what my political views were. Years later towards the end of college, when my political views really began to mature, I found myself falling less with rank and file Republicans and more with the fine folks sporting plastic Libertarian cards. The one thing I was sure of was that I was an extremist…for liberty.

You'll probably see several different voices come through in my writing. I have many influences in my political beliefs, but the general theme of what I write is 'government off my back,' and 'government screws up everything it touches.' I assume this line of thinking is what brings us all together under the Libertarian umbrella. I'm also huge free speech advocate, and nearly sued my university this past year when it and the student organization I was leading butted heads over free speech zones on campus. We won.

I hope you guys will find the blog entries enjoyable. Some of them you will find light and entertaining, and others you may find to be a bit more deep and intellectual. I like to mix it up depending on the topic. Regardless, I hope that each piece will elicit healthy conversation and discourse. One of the great things about being Libertarians is the intellectual diversity of the party. Each member is different, with varying opinions and beliefs. But we all at least think for ourselves. Nobody ever swallows without first chewing, so to speak.

And it is this fact that separates our party from all the others.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 02:01 PM | Comments (46)

July 05, 2007

Your Patriotism Could be a Crime

This article comes to us from FoxNews.com about a new law in Minnesota that will take effect at the end of the year. The law, ironically sponsored by a Democrat, will require that all American flags sold in the state to have been made in the United States.

By year's end, a new law will require every Old Glory sold in Minnesota stores to be American made. It's the latest and strongest attempt by states to stem imports of foreign-made U.S. flags.

And apparently Minnesota is not the only state with laws like this one:

In Arizona, schools and public colleges were required starting July 1 to outfit every classroom from junior high up with a made-in-the-USA flag. Tennessee requires all U.S. flags bought via state contract to be made here, and similar bills are moving forward in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

At first glance, this must seem like the patriotic thing to do. After all, how can an American flag truly be American if the Chinese make it? I suppose one might call this a "preemptive war" on foreign flag manufacturers. You can't let the terrorists win by letting them produce our flags and get our money, even if they are far less expensive for consumers and it's what buyers prefer. That's just not American.

However, not everybody was keen on the measure (we call these people "traitors"):

"That flag should be made throughout the world because it is our message to the world that there is hope for freedom and justice," Republican Rep. Dan Severson said at the time.

Well, not really, Mr. Severson. Forbidding its sale more likely sends the message that the whole idea of private transaction without government interference, the founding philosophy of the United States,is not as highly regarded as it once was. But hey, it sounds good as long as you don't think about it.

Another issue is whether or not this new state law violates World Trade Organization standards:

Under World Trade Organization standards, the U.S. government can't treat foreign products less favorably than those produced within its boundaries, said Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland and the former chief economist for the U.S. International Trade Commission. How the rules apply to states is debatable, he said.

For now, the law's sponsor, Democratic Rep. Tom Rukavina, is happy with his victory over the "terrorist nations" who defile our flag with their grimy, un-American hands:

To celebrate his legislative victory, he plans to hand out 1,000 miniature flags at Fourth of July parades in his district.
"The biggest honor that you can give the flag is that it be made by American workers in the United States of America," he said. "Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country."

Evidently your American flag only represents freedom if it has the "Made in the USA" logo proudly stamped on it. So, be sure to hide all your foreign-made American flags, lest you have the Minnesota Flag Police storming into your yard with torches blazing.

I just wonder how Mr. Rukavina is going to feel about his victory once he realizes his 1,000 little flags were probably made by Mexican immigrants working in the manufacturing plants.

Oops.

Posted by Andrew Davis at 12:29 PM | Comments (9)

July 02, 2007

Bush Scoots Libby from Prison

In a dramatic update in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby saga, President Bush has commuted the jail sentence of the highest-ranking White House official sent to prison since the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan era. It should be remembered that last month, Libby was ordered to serve two and a half years in prison for the charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false claims to the FBI during the 2003 investigation of who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. He was also ordered to pay a $250,000 fine.

President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative's identity. He was the highest-ranking White House official ordered to prison since the Iran-Contra affair.

Now the question is what one actually has to do in order to be sent to prison when working for the Bush administration. Apparently lying to the FBI and obstructing justice isn't enough.

Just weeks ago, Americans cried foul when the L.A. County Sheriff cut short Paris Hilton's jailhouse makeover. Will the public respond to "Scootergate" with the same displeasure or will they prove to be fickle?

Posted by Andrew Davis at 07:42 PM | Comments (34)