Barack Obama Suicide Bomber

by Mike Calpino

As the debate over the debt ceiling heats up, each side is looking for an advantage. Except for a few principled holdouts, it would appear that both sides want to raise the ceiling, again, and are using it as a huge bargaining chip. The Republicans are trying to hold the line on taxes, or “revenue enhancements”, and get major spending cuts. We shall see whether they hold fast, the last several months of capitulation don’t hold much promise. The Democrats want to keep every program and increase spending and taxes, particularly on the “rich.” It is clear that President Obama wants to tax and spend, his recent speeches have made that abundantly clear. The question is, what is the end game?


Several years ago I postulated that the Democrats would use economic crisis to remove the Republicans from contention in politics for another generation. Their ability to demonize Republicans, particularly “conservative” Republicans, has been very successful over the years. If a “compromise” is reached, which is the most likely outcome, we will borrow even more and demonstrate to the world that we have no intention of reigning in our spending and balancing our budget. The compromise will probably take the following form. The Democrats will agree to a few trillion in cuts over the next ten years, meaning we’ll only borrow an additional twelve trillion dollars instead of sixteen trillion from our children and grandchildren. The Republicans will agree to some revenue enhancements like closing loopholes. Remember, a “loophole” is a legal way to keep more of your money so read that “tax increase”. This will anger the TEA party, conservatives and libertarians among the Republican party who will either actively abandon them and go elsewhere or simply give up and stop supporting them. This will ensure Democrat victory in the near term and as the economy continues to falter under the greater debt and tax load, more dependents will be created-read “Democrat voters.”

That is one possibility. What if a deal is not reached? What if on August 3rd we find ourselves unable to borrow the forty cents on every dollar we are currently spending? All of a sudden our government will be forced to live on the two hundred billion dollars that come in every month in taxes and no more. In the face of the fact that we have taken on obligations we cannot pay for, we will suddenly find ourselves in the position of having to choose priorities. If it were your household, you would be choosing between car and house payments, food, the cable and cell phone bills, the utilities. It is assumed that our first priority will be to pay the interest on our outstanding debt and redeeming bonds that come due in order to maintain our fiscal health and credit rating. Beyond that President Obama will have the discretion to choose which bills get paid. If the end game is to put the Republicans far in the back of the bus, as the President puts it, he will spend or not spend to his and the Democrat’s political advantage. He will slow or reduce welfare and social security payments, reduce Medicare reimbursements and panic the largest constituencies while blaming the Republicans and the rich who won’t contribute their fair share. The pressure won’t have to be applied long before the debt ceiling will be raised and the Democrats will get everything they want. More spending, more taxes and a new tactic for fear mongering. If you elect those mean Republicans, they won’t raise the debt ceiling next time and your benefits will go away. If the accumulation of power is the end, this is certainly an effective means.

A libertarian view: Neither party is serious about debt reduction (The Baltimore Sun Version)

Originally published in the Baltimore Sun

Muir Boda - Vice Chair Maryland Libertarian Party

President James Madison said each generation should bear the burden of its own wars, not foist their expense off on future generations. Since Barack Obama became president, he and the Congress have been responsible for one-third of the current national debt. Record spending for entitlements, war, bailouts to banks, businesses and states have paved the way for future unfunded liabilities of up to $100 trillion.

Obama and the Democrats, who hold to the Keynesian theory of economics, spout the class warfare argument that we need to tax corporate jet owners and raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires to preserve the sacred cows of big government.

Meanwhile, the clueless leadership of the Republican Party demands spending cuts that are only symbolic. Even if both parties got their way — by closing tax loopholes and cutting spending — the savings wouldn't be enough to reduce our national debt, which is the greatest threat to our nation's security.

Essentially, we are borrowing on the earnings of future generations, our children and grandchildren who have not joined the workforce or even been born yet.

Madison warned us of the need for each generation to pay its own way. If he could have envisioned the burden we are heaping on the backs of future generations, he would be appalled by the corrupt and morally decrepit actions of elected leaders at all levels of government. I know I am.

Muir Boda
The writer is vice chair of the Maryland Libertarian Party and managing editor of IndependentWord.com.

A Libertarian Case for Monarchy

by Leland B. Yeager from Mises.org
[Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty? (2011). This article was originally published in Liberty, (2004).]

Clear thought and discussion suffer when all sorts of good things, like liberty, equality, fraternity, rights, majority rule, and general welfare — some in tension with others — are marketed together under the portmanteau label “democracy.” Democracy’s core meaning is a particular method of choosing, replacing, and influencing government officials (Schumpeter 1950). It is not a doctrine of what government should and should not do. Nor is it the same thing as personal freedom or a free society or an egalitarian social ethos. True enough, some classical liberals, like Thomas Paine (1791) and Ludwig von Mises (1919), did scorn hereditary monarchy and did express touching faith that representative democracy would choose excellent leaders and adopt policies truly serving the common interest. Experience has taught us better, as the American founders already knew when constructing a government of separated and limited powers and of only filtered democracy.
As an exercise, and without claiming that my arguments are decisive, I’ll contend that constitutional monarchy can better preserve people’s freedom and opportunities than democracy as it has turned out in practice.[1]
My case holds only for countries where maintaining or restoring (or conceivably installing) monarchy is a live option.[2] We Americans have sounder hope of reviving respect for the philosophy of our Founders. Our traditions could serve some of the functions of monarchy in other countries.
An unelected absolute ruler could conceivably be a thoroughgoing classical liberal. Although a wise, benevolent, and liberal-minded dictatorship would not be a contradiction in terms, no way is actually available to assure such a regime and its continuity, including frictionless succession.
Some element of democracy is therefore necessary; totally replacing it would be dangerous. Democracy allows people some influence on who their rulers are and what policies they pursue. Elections, if not subverted, can oust bad rulers peacefully. Citizens who care about such things can enjoy a sense of participation in public affairs.
Anyone who believes in limiting government power for the sake of personal freedom should value also having some nondemocratic element of government besides courts respectful of their own narrow authority. While some monarchists are reactionaries or mystics, others (like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Sean Gabb, cited below) do come across as genuine classical liberals.

Madison on War Powers

“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.”

U.S. President James Madison