"Listen to the highly respected Gerald Celente, who pulls no punches, announce that the political system is failing the America people and that the Banks (Oligarchy) are robbing us blind. If you're not outraged, you're on life support. As Celente predicts – watch for the formation of an angry Progressive / Libertarian third party before the mid-term elections in 2010 and I'll be an active participant."
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
NYC: The City That Never Smokes
by Patrick Basham and John Luik
A proposal to ban lighting up in New York's parks has exposed the puritanical agenda behind the crusade against smoking.
A proposal to ban lighting up in New York's parks has exposed the puritanical agenda behind the crusade against smoking.
The truth about second-hand smoking is finally out.
Thanks to some unusual candour on the part of the anti-tobacco brigade in New York City, we now have official confirmation that banning smoking in public has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the health of non-smokers from second-hand smoke, but everything to do with stigmatising both smoking and smokers. Closer to home, new evidence from the National Health Service (NHS) shows that the public smoking ban in England has made absolutely no positive difference in smoking rates, despite claims made by its champions that it would.
In September, Dr Thomas Farley, New York City's Health Commissioner, proposed banning smoking at all of the city's parks and beaches (1). Dr Farley's rationale for the ban has nothing to do with the risks that outdoor smoking pose to non-smokers, but rather with preventing people, particularly children, from having to see anyone smoking in public. Farley says, 'We don't think children should have to watch someone smoking'. Farley also defends the extension of the smoking ban to outdoor areas by arguing that it is 'part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking rates'. New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, confirmed earlier this month that he would implement Farley's proposal, arguing that the public is 'overwhelmingly in favour' (2).
Why have the champions of banning smoking everywhere, even in private accommodation, suddenly come clean about the driving force behind their crusade? The answer is that they have essentially won the war over public smoking. But why is this the case? The answer, sadly, is that for the past 15 to 20 years, the public has been bombarded with a carefully orchestrated government-funded anti-tobacco campaign to convince them — in contradiction of the scientific evidence — that smokers pose a deadly health risk to non-smokers, particularly children.
The scientific evidence has never supported the case against public smoking. The US Environmental Protection Agency's seminal early 1990s report on second-hand smoke was severely flawed. Its critique of second-hand smoke was only sustained through a careful exclusion of non-confirming evidence and a non-traditional application of the statistical test known as confidence limits. The report was subjected to a scathing analysis by a US federal court, which rejected its scientific claims about the dangers of second-hand smoke, a finding that even on appeal was not reversed (3). READ MORE
Friday, October 30, 2009
Keep Government Out of Media
Marta Hummel Mossburg
If Fox News is not news, according to the White House, then what is CBS' "60 Minutes"? If Sunday's lineup is an example, it's flirting with becoming Obama TV.
It began its program with a piece on Medicare fraud - a worthy topic. But it's all about "perspective," as President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said of Fox's reporting.
Steve Kroft began the segment with, "Of all the problems facing the United States right now, none are more important than health care. President Obama says rising costs are driving huge federal budget deficits that imperil our future and that there is enough waste and fraud in the system to pay for health care reform if it were eliminated."
Who says health care reform is the biggest issue in the country - "60 Minutes," the president or the people of the United States? Polls consistently show the economy outranks health care reform on the list of Americans' concerns. But it certainly is Obama's chief concern as he seeks to overhaul the U.S. health system this fall. Kroft did mention that the $60 billion fraud industry raises "troubling questions" about the government's ability to run a bigger health care bureaucracy and told a chilling tale of how easy it is to defraud taxpayers. But the entire story is framed under the auspices that the government says this is the biggest issue, so therefore it should be covered.
That segment was followed by what can only be called an epilepsy advocacy piece by Katie Couric focused on Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod and his wife, Susan. Their family faced a huge struggle with a disease that struck their daughter Lauren, 28, as an infant. Theirs is a compelling story and the debate over funding for epilepsy certainly is a worthy public policy issue. But with three million people suffering from the disease in the United States, according to Couric, aren't there others who could have served as her protagonists? There was nothing particularly newsy about the piece that made them necessary headliners.
Great American Quotes
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. "
– H.L. Mencken
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Greed Is Good?
“What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy, it’s always the other fellow that is greedy” (Dr Milton Friedman)
Welcome to the War on Greed. It manifests itself in massive government legislation, Michael Moore films, Paul Krugman editorials, TV news, and elsewhere. All those greedy corporations, greedy bankers, greedy entrepreneurs have ruined us. They need to be stopped!
It is easy to apply the greed label. That’s because most people applying that label don’t know what greed is. What is greed?
If you reached this far in my article, you already read the quote and viewed the video by the great Dr Milton Friedman. He provides a necessary context to the question but does not really answer it.
My observation is that most people that apply the greed label think that profit is greed. Those people are confused. They think anyone that has achieved and are wealthy are greedy. They are wrong.
Greed is an addiction. It is an addiction to possession. A greedy person just needs to have more stuff. Be it money, land, art work, or power, the greedy person will do anything to have it. They will break the law, steal, cheat, lie, murder. Their compulsion to acquire is all consuming and ultimately self destructive, as shown in Citizen Kane. Some of the greedy people are bankers and corporate CEOs. Many greedy people are politicians.
Profit is not an addiction. In order to profit, you must provide a good or service that people want. The more you produce, the more profit you make. In order to grow profit you must continue to offer what is in demand, and if you do so you will be rewarded with higher profit. There is no lying, stealing, or murder involved. It is voluntary, peaceful, and ethical.
If you apply the proper definition of greed to our current condition, you will find most of the people labeled as greedy are not greedy. They may have made bad business decisions and took unwise risks. But they did not lie, steal, murder.
Much is made of health insurance companies making record profits. Their profits are reported to have increased 350% over a decade. A fine example of the War on Greed was recently shown on Fox News. How greedy they are! However, these greedy health insurance companies are nowhere near as greedy as beer brewers and software companies. The profit margins for these greedy health care companies are about 3%. Yes, for every dollar invested they get back 3 cents. For those who suffer from the experience of a government controlled education system, you may need to learn what a profit margin is.
There are others that are greedy and have not been labeled as such. They have acquired more power by lying and stealing. They tell us they need to take more money from us to stop all the greedy people. And we re-elect them.
So if you are watching Citizen Kane or Wall Street and ponder Gordon Gekko’s famous statement that greed is good and that greed works, you should now have a proper perspective.
Greed is bad. Profit is good.
Pat Dixon is the Chair of the Texas Libertarian Party and a City Council Member in Lago Vista, Texas.Libelous Leftist Lynch Mobs
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Watching Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get away with libeling Rush Limbaugh with several outrageously spectacular lies recently (they falsely claimed Limbaugh "defended slavery" and praised Martin Luther King, Jr.’s murderer) reminded me once again how the American Left throws all morals out the door when it comes to any challenges to their secular "religion" of welfare statism and socialism. (The neocon Right, which includes Limbaugh, tells even bigger lies, such as the ones that "justified" the Iraq war.) It also reminded me of how campus leftists at Loyola University Maryland libeled Dr. Walter Block last year with equally outrageous slanders.
LRC readers may recall that after Dr. Block presented a very mainstream economics lecture on "The Economics of the Gender Gap" the university president, Rev. Brian Linnane, S.J., who did not attend the lecture, issued an email to all faculty, staff, students and alumni that did not mention anything that was said in the lecture, but libeled Dr. Block as a racist and sexist. Dr. Block’s apparent "offense" was to use economic theory to challenge one of the superstitions of academic feminism – the dubious notion that all of the difference in male/female wages is caused by sex discrimination, something that no self-respecting economist would ever claim. The obvious goal of such obnoxious tactics is to censor all views of such subjects that do not conform to left-wing political correctness. (Linnane's academic field of specialization is "feminist theology.")
I suspected from the beginning that the libeling of Dr. Block was a set-up by the self-appointed Campus Thought Police, who never stop reminding everyone that they are in favor of "social justice." (The implication is that anyone who opposes their socialistic political agenda must be in favor of injustice.) It was this "social justice crowd" on the Loyola campus who immediately claimed after Dr. Block’s lecture that a student complained to them about the "insensitivity" of Dr. Block’s rendition of the economics of discrimination. Within twenty-four hours I learned that the university president was preparing his libelous letter despite the fact that he had neither attended the lecture nor contacted Dr. Block to ask him if the scurrilous slanders about him were true. I have always suspected that the student was sent to the seminar with specific instructions to cause trouble, which he did. READ MORE
Watching Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get away with libeling Rush Limbaugh with several outrageously spectacular lies recently (they falsely claimed Limbaugh "defended slavery" and praised Martin Luther King, Jr.’s murderer) reminded me once again how the American Left throws all morals out the door when it comes to any challenges to their secular "religion" of welfare statism and socialism. (The neocon Right, which includes Limbaugh, tells even bigger lies, such as the ones that "justified" the Iraq war.) It also reminded me of how campus leftists at Loyola University Maryland libeled Dr. Walter Block last year with equally outrageous slanders.
LRC readers may recall that after Dr. Block presented a very mainstream economics lecture on "The Economics of the Gender Gap" the university president, Rev. Brian Linnane, S.J., who did not attend the lecture, issued an email to all faculty, staff, students and alumni that did not mention anything that was said in the lecture, but libeled Dr. Block as a racist and sexist. Dr. Block’s apparent "offense" was to use economic theory to challenge one of the superstitions of academic feminism – the dubious notion that all of the difference in male/female wages is caused by sex discrimination, something that no self-respecting economist would ever claim. The obvious goal of such obnoxious tactics is to censor all views of such subjects that do not conform to left-wing political correctness. (Linnane's academic field of specialization is "feminist theology.")
I suspected from the beginning that the libeling of Dr. Block was a set-up by the self-appointed Campus Thought Police, who never stop reminding everyone that they are in favor of "social justice." (The implication is that anyone who opposes their socialistic political agenda must be in favor of injustice.) It was this "social justice crowd" on the Loyola campus who immediately claimed after Dr. Block’s lecture that a student complained to them about the "insensitivity" of Dr. Block’s rendition of the economics of discrimination. Within twenty-four hours I learned that the university president was preparing his libelous letter despite the fact that he had neither attended the lecture nor contacted Dr. Block to ask him if the scurrilous slanders about him were true. I have always suspected that the student was sent to the seminar with specific instructions to cause trouble, which he did. READ MORE
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Great Libertarian Quotes
"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
The Blind Side - Great Story Coming to Theaters
The life story of the Baltimore Raven's Rookie Offensive Tackle Michael Oher is coming to theaters on November 20th. Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw play Leigh Anne and Sean Touhy who took in a homeless teenager from a broken home.
IMDB's synopsis says:
Great story and since Oher is a Raven we wish to encourage everyone to check it this incredibly inspiring story.
IMDB's synopsis says:
"The Blind Side" depicts the remarkable true story of Michael Oher, a homeless African-American youngster from a broken home, taken in by the Touhys, a well-to-do white family who help him fulfill his potential. At the same time, Oher's presence in the Touhys' lives leads them to some insightful self-discoveries of their own. Living in his new environment, the teen faces a completely different set of challenges to overcome. As a football player and student, Oher works hard and, with the help of his coaches and adopted family, becomes an All-American offensive left tackle. In the latest chapter of his inspiring story, Oher was a First Round draft pick in the 2009 NFL Draft, selected by the Baltimore Ravens. The Touhys were there to share the moment with him."
Great story and since Oher is a Raven we wish to encourage everyone to check it this incredibly inspiring story.
Greasing the Palms of Democrats & Republicans from the Same Wallets
CREW - Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics In Washington have filed a complaint with the FEC concerning campaign contributions to Michael Steele's 2006 Senatorial Campaign. There website stated the following:
20 Oct 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Maryland citizen and CREW Chief Counsel Anne Weismann, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against a Maryland real estate developer and a number of his employees, alleging serious violations of campaign finance law in giving to Republican Federal Committees.
The complaint seeks an FEC investigation of Edward St. John and six employees of his company, St. John Properties, Inc., for making over $60,000 in illegal corporate conduit contributions to the Maryland Republican State Central Committee and the 2006 Senate campaign of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The contributions that are the subject of the FEC complaint were made contemporaneously with contributions to several Maryland state candidates that the Maryland State Attorney determined last year had been reimbursed by Mr. St. John using St. John Properties, Inc. funds given to company employees in the form of year-end bonuses. Mr. St. John paid over $100,000 in penalties to settle those state allegations, but he has never been held accountable for the much larger contributions made in connection with the 2006 federal election.
CREW's executive director Melanie Sloan said today, "The facts indicate Mr. St. John made illegal conduit contributions to Michael Steele's campaign committee. With the 2010 campaign cycle in full swing, the FEC should investigate Mr. St. John's activities immediately and make clear that violations of campaign finance law will not be tolerated."
This comes on the heals of last year's fine stated below from CREW's website:
In June 2008, St. John paid $55,000 in civil fines after being charged with making campaign contributions exceeding legal limits through third parties that anticipated reimbursement.
What these situations prove is that both political parties are simply funded from the same source. Money is what controls the agenda and the strings that our current corrupt crop of political rulers dance to.According to the Office of the State Prosecutor, several St. John vice presidents made contributions to the campaigns of Gov. Martin O'Malley and Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith in 2006 and were paid back by St. John in the form of year-end bonuses.
No criminal charges were filed because "there was insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. St. John knew that such actions violated Maryland law," the office officials said in a statement.
The state prosecutor also found more than $300,000 had been contributed during that election cycle through third parties and limited liability companies to both Democrats and Republicans. All of the contributions, however, were within legal limits.
For the 2010 Census: Name and Address Only
(Congress Will Obey the Constitution When the People Demand It)
by Paul Galvin
Next year the country will go through another census. The people and the states – the creators and on-going sustainers of the federal government – have authorized this undertaking (U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2). The census should be seen not as a burden but rather as an opportunity for Americans to practice self-government. Let me explain.
Our written Constitution embodies ideas to which every member of Congress has taken an Article VI oath to support. In taking their constitutional oath the members of Congress are joined by every member of the 50 state legislatures, every federal executive, legislative, judicial officer, and every executive, legislative, judicial officer of the 50 states, as well as all military personnel. That so many are required to take the oath "to support this Constitution" is ample evidence that the Framers thought their written document to be quite important, a belief shared by most Americans.
Our Constitution is written in clear, understandable English. Consider the census provision. "The [first] actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States [March, 1789], and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they [Congress] shall by Law direct." This allows Congress to count us, but only count us. The operative word, "Enumeration."
How then can we help Congress? By giving census officials your name and address, thereby counting you, but nothing more. By doing this simple task, you assist Congress and census officials fulfill their oath-taken duties "to support this Constitution."
We have agreed to be counted but the license ends there. With our consent Congress is authorized to count us for one purpose: to apportion among the states, as a function of population, the number of House representatives who will then speak for / represent the people on federal matters. That’s it. As to senators, the representatives for the states, no apportionment/enumeration scheme is necessary because no variable is involved: each state is entitled to two senators regardless of demographic or geographical size ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State"). These provisions are the result of the delegates’ debates on representation and their final agreement, often referenced as the Great (or Sherman’s) Compromise. READ THE REST...
Gallup Sees Libertarianism at an All-Time High
David Boaz at Cato@Liberty points out that since late 2008, the percentage of Americans whose political beliefs could be roughly characterized as "libertarian" (that is, say yes to both "government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses" and "government should not favor any particular set of values") has hit a high of 23 percent.
Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie wrote about the "libertarian moment" in the December 2008 issue of Reason magazine.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Ready Money but Not Quite Dirty
A Baltimore nonprofit raises millions for the needy, while its checkbook enables city officials to spend with little oversight
The Stench Continues to Rise in Baltimore City by the Gunpowder Chronicle certainly explains the awful smell floating over the Bay that we have been smelling. The Baltimore Sun's article raises some questionable spending practices through private funds that city officials are using for pet projects.Check Out The Article.
Libertarians attend the National Equality March in D.C.
By: Ivy Wisner and Ashley O'Donnell
On October 11, 2009, Libertarian Party interns joined over 150,000
protesters at the National Equality March in Washington, D.C. The march
was organized to show support for the LGBT community and came in response
to the Obama administration’s negligent attitude towards gay rights. After
nine months of serving as president, Obama failed to end the
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy on banning open homosexuals in the military,
prolonging the ban until 2010 or later. The administration
also ignored the subject of gay marriage as other issues took the
forefront. This leaves liberty-minded individuals wondering how long will
gays be treated as second-class citizens. So far, the Libertarian Party
seems to be the only political party to offer uncompromising solutions to
these issues.
Instead of urging the government to grant same-sex couples the same
benefits as heterosexual married couples, the Libertarian Party advocates
for zero government intervention in personal relationships with the goal
of privatizing marriage. Libertarians maintain that as long as the
government has the power to distribute marriage licenses, it has the power
to define marriage itself. Therefore, the only way to preserve the
greatest amount of freedom for members of the LGBT community is to
regard marriage and other personal relationships as private social
contracts, eliminating the special benefits that are assigned to the
government sanctioned institution. The government should not treat
married people differently from unmarried people.
The official Libertarian Party platform states: “Consenting adults should
be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict
personal relationships.”
The issue of privatization is not often discussed in gay marriage
debates. People frequently look to the government to enact
legislation to secure so-called “endangered” civil liberties, but
the solution which provides the most freedom is one that is separate
from the government. Therefore, it is important to attend protests
such as this, spread the Libertarian philosophy, and recruit new
Libertarians.
Mr. Wu Award
Ted Kennedy is the current holder of the Mr. Wu Award from the Gunpowder Chronicle. Actually, I doubt he is able to hold it, but it is his..... Mr. Wu Award.....
Monday, October 26, 2009
LP Monday Message: Libertarian candidates on November 2009 ballot
This coming November 3 is Election Day in many places throughout the U.S. Since it's an odd-numbered year, there are relatively few races. Nevertheless, dozens of Libertarians are on the ballot for various positions.
While you may not live in a place with a Libertarian on the ballot, perhaps you've got friends or family who live where one of our Libertarians are on the ballot. If so, I hope you'll encourage them to vote for the Libertarian candidates in their area.
You can view our list of Libertarians in upcoming 2009 races.
Only two states have gubernatorial elections in 2009 (New Jersey and Virginia). Ken Kaplan is the New Jersey Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate.
Last week we posted an entry on our blog about Matt Drew, who is in a run-off for Durham City Council in North Carolina. He placed second in a five-way primary on October 6.
I am especially thankful for every Libertarian candidate who throws their hat in the ring and runs for office. In some cases Libertarian candidates do win and have the opportunity to directly implement libertarian policies. Usually our wins come in small towns or small jurisdictions where there aren't too many voters and a candidate can campaign door-to-door.
On the other hand, many of us live in large cities where winning isn't feasible in the short term. Nevertheless, every Libertarian on the ballot helps to publicize the Libertarian Party and our ideals, and helps build the party for future races.
I've run for office five times myself. As Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, I helped get a record 173 candidates on the November 2008 ballot in Texas. As your national Executive Director, I'm looking forward to recruiting an army of candidates across the country for the November 2010 mid-term elections.
I hope you'll visit our website and make a contribution to help us prepare for the upcoming 2009 and 2010 elections.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
While you may not live in a place with a Libertarian on the ballot, perhaps you've got friends or family who live where one of our Libertarians are on the ballot. If so, I hope you'll encourage them to vote for the Libertarian candidates in their area.
You can view our list of Libertarians in upcoming 2009 races.
Only two states have gubernatorial elections in 2009 (New Jersey and Virginia). Ken Kaplan is the New Jersey Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate.
Last week we posted an entry on our blog about Matt Drew, who is in a run-off for Durham City Council in North Carolina. He placed second in a five-way primary on October 6.
I am especially thankful for every Libertarian candidate who throws their hat in the ring and runs for office. In some cases Libertarian candidates do win and have the opportunity to directly implement libertarian policies. Usually our wins come in small towns or small jurisdictions where there aren't too many voters and a candidate can campaign door-to-door.
On the other hand, many of us live in large cities where winning isn't feasible in the short term. Nevertheless, every Libertarian on the ballot helps to publicize the Libertarian Party and our ideals, and helps build the party for future races.
I've run for office five times myself. As Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, I helped get a record 173 candidates on the November 2008 ballot in Texas. As your national Executive Director, I'm looking forward to recruiting an army of candidates across the country for the November 2010 mid-term elections.
I hope you'll visit our website and make a contribution to help us prepare for the upcoming 2009 and 2010 elections.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Paying Off Debt Is Like Dying…
by Bill Bonner
Yesterday, George Osborne, Britain's Conservative Party finance minister-in-waiting, did something extraordinary. We can't remember anything like it. He told the truth.
"We are sinking in a sea of debt," he admitted. And on the very day when France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said he would not raise taxes, Osborne said that he would not lower them. In order to lighten Britain's debt, he'd leave Labor's 50% maximum tax rate right where it is.
Voters don't like hearing about debt. Politicians don't like talking about it. And economists don't want to think about it. And in a kind of collective suicide pact, they have all agreed not to worry about it. But debt is at the center of the world's financial troubles.
Paying off debt is like dying. You try to put it off as long as you can. But nobody runs an open tab forever.
This week brought news that Maine-based luxury yacht maker Hinckley, which has been building boats since 1928, is sinking. The problem is neither technical nor operational. It is philosophical. No one complains about the quality of the boats. Or even the prices (if you have to ask, you can't afford one). The company sailed along nicely until 1997. Then, the private equity hotshots from Boston took the helm. The old Hinckleys who ran the shop looked upon debt as though they were looking at a bottle of whiskey. A drink now and then did no harm. But watch out. Too much will sink you. In the 70 years they ran the place, they accumulated only $1 million of debt. But the new owners were dipsomaniacs; they multiplied Hinckley's debt 20 to 40 times. (Exact figures are not available.)
For much of history, failing to repay debt was regarded as not merely a breach of contract, but a crime. People who failed to repay their debts in timely fashion were thought to have stolen from their lenders; they were put in prison. In the Middle Ages even a dead debtor's children could be sent to prison.
Now, bankruptcy laws allow individuals and businesses to go to rehab. Then, they can stiff creditors again. Neither sin nor crime, debt is now just a cost of doing business. Read More
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Separation of Church and Signs
by Pat Dixon
It is common for people to assume Libertarians hurt Republicans. They see us aligned with Republicans on economic issues and presume we split their vote. Wrong!
Besides serving as the Libertarian Party state chairman, I also am serving my second term on the city council of Lago Vista, TX. Last night at our council meeting we had a discussion about having religious advertising on a sign paid for with taxes. Can you guess what my position is?
I will add that this is one of the strongest Republican Party areas in the state of Texas. If you ask most city council members or voters around here what party they support, it will be obvious to you. I can tell you the predominant sentiment of our council is that we should not be afraid of the ACLU and that religious material is fine.
Well on this matter I am proud to stand with the ACLU. As a matter of fact I often stand with the ACLU where Republicans and most Democrats dare not go.
As is my custom, I have already posted my opinions at www.PatDixon.org. If I can’t bother you to go there and read it, let my summarize.
A few weeks ago we had a vote on whether to have a community sign provided by the city government, paid for with taxes. I cast the lone dissenting vote. While the amount of money is small relative to the overall budget, our budget is very tight and we made lots of cuts to avoid raising taxes. Therefore this expense, though small, should not stand while other more urgent causes are cut. However, the real problem is not financial. I warned that having such a sign would result in a fiasco of contention and rancor over policy. Last night’s council meeting proved my point.
Our city staff prepared a draft policy for the sign at last night’s meeting. It contained an exclusion for content of a religious nature, which I support. In order to clarify the interpretation of this policy I started the questioning by presenting several examples from the church I attend. A fellow councilman asked if a vacation bible school could be advertised. This went on a good long while with the mayor concluding he doesn’t have any problem with using taxpayer’s money for advertising items of a religious nature.
Let me set some further context here. We begin council meetings with a prayer to Jesus Christ. I oppose this. I haven’t actively done anything about it because I have so many other battles to wage, but I would certainly welcome a policy change here.
Why would a Catholic who goes to church twice every Sunday oppose religion in city politics?
Perhaps you are familiar with the first amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you are aware of the inspiration the first amendment derived from Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps you are aware that Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and others have the same rights as Christians. Perhaps the Muslim, Jew, or Atheist wonders if they will get a fair shake on a zoning variance after the entire council prays to Jesus. Perhaps you are aware of the atrocities of the Taliban.
I take my faith seriously. I do not need George Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other politician being the middle man in my relationship with God. If we continue to empower politicians to take our money to promote their church, what happens when their church isn’t your church?
Now ask yourself, do I sound like a Republican to you?
Let me be more clear:
* I cast the lone dissenting vote against an ordinance allowing government to ban cell phone use in school zones
* I cast the lone dissenting vote to renew our curfew law
It is easy to stand on the sidelines and call yourself one thing or another. The true test of your identity is when you are outnumbered but refuse to compromise your principles.
So, do Libertarians hurt Republicans? Yes, when they are in power. We have had Republicans in power until recently and Libertarians have appealed more to voters that see their failure of leadership. The same will happen with Democrats. Research proves it
In conclusion, if you are wondering who will pay as much attention to your privacy and individual rights as your economic rights, don’t listen to what people say. Look at what they do. I am happy to stand with the ACLU and Jefferson. Are you?
Pat Dixon is a City Council Member in Lago Vista, Texas and is the Chair of The Libertarian Party of Texas.
It is common for people to assume Libertarians hurt Republicans. They see us aligned with Republicans on economic issues and presume we split their vote. Wrong!
Besides serving as the Libertarian Party state chairman, I also am serving my second term on the city council of Lago Vista, TX. Last night at our council meeting we had a discussion about having religious advertising on a sign paid for with taxes. Can you guess what my position is?
I will add that this is one of the strongest Republican Party areas in the state of Texas. If you ask most city council members or voters around here what party they support, it will be obvious to you. I can tell you the predominant sentiment of our council is that we should not be afraid of the ACLU and that religious material is fine.
Well on this matter I am proud to stand with the ACLU. As a matter of fact I often stand with the ACLU where Republicans and most Democrats dare not go.
As is my custom, I have already posted my opinions at www.PatDixon.org. If I can’t bother you to go there and read it, let my summarize.
A few weeks ago we had a vote on whether to have a community sign provided by the city government, paid for with taxes. I cast the lone dissenting vote. While the amount of money is small relative to the overall budget, our budget is very tight and we made lots of cuts to avoid raising taxes. Therefore this expense, though small, should not stand while other more urgent causes are cut. However, the real problem is not financial. I warned that having such a sign would result in a fiasco of contention and rancor over policy. Last night’s council meeting proved my point.
Our city staff prepared a draft policy for the sign at last night’s meeting. It contained an exclusion for content of a religious nature, which I support. In order to clarify the interpretation of this policy I started the questioning by presenting several examples from the church I attend. A fellow councilman asked if a vacation bible school could be advertised. This went on a good long while with the mayor concluding he doesn’t have any problem with using taxpayer’s money for advertising items of a religious nature.
Let me set some further context here. We begin council meetings with a prayer to Jesus Christ. I oppose this. I haven’t actively done anything about it because I have so many other battles to wage, but I would certainly welcome a policy change here.
Why would a Catholic who goes to church twice every Sunday oppose religion in city politics?
Perhaps you are familiar with the first amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you are aware of the inspiration the first amendment derived from Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps you are aware that Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and others have the same rights as Christians. Perhaps the Muslim, Jew, or Atheist wonders if they will get a fair shake on a zoning variance after the entire council prays to Jesus. Perhaps you are aware of the atrocities of the Taliban.
I take my faith seriously. I do not need George Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other politician being the middle man in my relationship with God. If we continue to empower politicians to take our money to promote their church, what happens when their church isn’t your church?
Now ask yourself, do I sound like a Republican to you?
Let me be more clear:
* I cast the lone dissenting vote against an ordinance allowing government to ban cell phone use in school zones
* I cast the lone dissenting vote to renew our curfew law
It is easy to stand on the sidelines and call yourself one thing or another. The true test of your identity is when you are outnumbered but refuse to compromise your principles.
So, do Libertarians hurt Republicans? Yes, when they are in power. We have had Republicans in power until recently and Libertarians have appealed more to voters that see their failure of leadership. The same will happen with Democrats. Research proves it
In conclusion, if you are wondering who will pay as much attention to your privacy and individual rights as your economic rights, don’t listen to what people say. Look at what they do. I am happy to stand with the ACLU and Jefferson. Are you?
Pat Dixon is a City Council Member in Lago Vista, Texas and is the Chair of The Libertarian Party of Texas.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Libertarians pleased by new federal marijuana policy
WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party (LP) today expressed its approval of the Obama administration's new, more laissez-faire policy toward medical marijuana. The policy appears to end the practice of federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.
Wes Benedict, LP executive director, commented, "This is a small step in the right direction. The federal government currently wastes tremendous resources in the War on Drugs, creating a huge, vicious, violent black market. This new policy will reduce the damage and destruction, and it will hopefully end some of the unjust prosecution of peaceful medical marijuana providers and patients."
The LP has long called for the repeal of laws that criminalize the medicinal or recreational use of drugs.
Benedict added, "We urge the Obama administration not to stop with this small step, but to take further steps to end the destructive, unjust, unconstitutional War on Drugs."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
Using Freedom to Fund Newspapers?
Posted on October 21, 2009, 9:32AM | Matt Welch
It's a Maureen Dowd column, so not to be taken seriously, but check out the latest Big Idea for Saving Our Newspapers:
It's a Maureen Dowd column, so not to be taken seriously, but check out the latest Big Idea for Saving Our Newspapers:
Mortimer Zuckerman, who owns The Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, proposed to Forbes that the federal government could save newspapers by allowing sports betting on newspaper Web sites."It would take Congressional legislation and the willingness on the part of the government to confront gambling and casino interests that have blocked this," he said. "Newspaper owners have never gotten together to lobby for this because they have always been quite profitable. Those days are behind us."
I tracked down Zuckerman in Jerusalem on Tuesday to ask him about it. "Newspapers are so critical for public dialogue and holding public officials responsible," he told me. "And who's going to be able to afford original reporting in the next five years? Very, very few."
He said some British newspapers make millions on betting games like Bingo. "People are spending money on what is basically a social vice anyhow," he said. "So why not use it to preserve the First Amendment? It's not a perfect solution, but it is a solution." [...]
Nick Pileggi, who wrote the books and screenplays for "Goodfellas" and "Casino," sees no downside. "It would be a wonderful, huge blow against organized crime because the money would be taken out of what the mob gets," he said. "And every state has a lottery so nobody from the state is going to stand up and say 'We're against gambling.'"
He said that if newspapers would stop being so stuffy, they could set up A.T.M.-style machines in lobbies and at newsstands and "take over a business that the mob now does illegally worth $20 to $40 billion a year."
Or, you know, you could legalize online gambling because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, regardless of how the newspaper industry is doing this year.
For the definitive piece about "the strangely selective and self-defeating crackdown on Internet gambling," consult this June 2008 piece by Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum. And watch here how Jesus himself disapproves of criminalizing nonviolent recreation.
Myocardial Infractions
A government-commissioned report promotes smoking bans by tweaking the evidence.
Six years ago, when I asked an epidemiologist about a report that a smoking ban in Helena, Montana, had cut heart attacks by 40 percent within six months, he thought the idea was so ridiculous that no one would take it seriously. He was wrong.
Since then 10 other studies have attributed substantial short-term reductions in heart attacks to smoking bans, and last week an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee endorsed their findings. But a closer look at the IOM report, which was commissioned by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggests its conclusions are based on a desire to promote smoking bans rather than a dispassionate examination of the evidence.
Thousands of jurisdictions around the world restrict smoking. Some of them are bound to see significant drops in heart attacks purely by chance, while others will see no real change or significant increases. Focusing on the first group proves nothing unless it is noticeably bigger than the other two groups.
The largest study of this issue, which used nationwide data instead of looking at cherry-picked communities, concluded that smoking bans in the U.S. "are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction." It also found that "large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."
That study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in March, suggests that publication bias—the tendency to report positive findings and ignore negative ones—explains the "consistent" results highlighted by the IOM committee. But even though the panelists say they tried to compensate for publication bias by looking for relevant data that did not appear in medical journals, they ignored the NBER paper, along with analyses that found no declines in heart attacks following smoking bans in California, Florida, New York, Oregon, England, Wales, and Scotland.
If smoking bans reduce heart attacks, the effect could be due to declines in smoking, declines in secondhand smoke exposure, or both. The IOM report settles on that last explanation, quite a leap given that "only two of the studies distinguished between reductions in heart attacks suffered by smokers versus nonsmokers." READ MORE REASON
'War on Terror' II
by Julian Sanchez
This article appeared in The Nation on October 19, 2009.
We know the rules by now, the strange conventions and stilted Kabuki scripts that govern our cartoon facsimile of a national security debate. The Obama administration makes vague, reassuring noises about constraining executive power and protecting civil liberties, but then merrily adopts whatever appalling policy George W. Bush put in place. Conservatives hit the panic button on the right-wing noise machine anyway, keeping the delicate ecosystem in balance by creating the false impression that something has changed. We've watched the formula play out with Guantánamo Bay, torture prosecutions and the invocation of "state secrets." We appear to be on the verge of doing the same with national security surveillance.
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed to abandon hope of bringing any real change to the Patriot Act. A lopsided and depressingly bipartisan majority approved legislation that would reauthorize a series of expanded surveillance powers set to expire at the end of the year. Several senators had proposed that reauthorization be wedded to safeguards designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans from indiscriminate data dragnets — but behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Obama administration ensured that even the most modest of these were stripped from the final bill now being sent to the full Senate.
In September the Senate got off to a promising start. Only three provisions are actually slated for "sunset" this year: "lone wolf" authority to wiretap terror suspects unconnected with any foreign terror group; "roving" wiretaps that can follow a suspect across an indefinite number of phone lines and Internet accounts; and "Section 215" orders that can be used to compel third parties to turn over any "tangible thing" investigators believe may be relevant to a terrorism investigation. Yet several Democrats had signaled a desire to use the renewal process to undertake a much broader review of the post-9/11 surveillance architecture, including National Security Letters (NSLs) — a controversial tool that permits the mass acquisition of financial and telecommunications records without court order — and last year's sweeping amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permit the executive branch to authorize broad interception of Americans' international communications with minimal court oversight. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold proposed an ambitious and comprehensive reform bill called the JUSTICE Act — which still would have reauthorized roving wiretaps and 215 orders — while Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy offered a more modest bill that nevertheless sought to narrow the nearly unlimited scope of NSLs and Section 215. READ MORE @ CATOTuesday, October 13, 2009
When Public Power Is Used for Private Gain
It's time for New York's highest court to say no to eminent domain abuse
Damon W. Root | October 8, 2009In December 2003, Bruce Ratner, a New York real estate tycoon and owner of the New Jersey Nets basketball team, announced his long-simmering plans to build a 22-acre "urban utopia" in central Brooklyn, featuring more than a dozen office and apartment towers rising as high as 60 stories, a 180-room hotel, and a fancy new basketball arena for Ratner's Nets to call home.
Dubbed the Atlantic Yards, this ambitious project faced several potentially ruinous obstacles. First, various private parties owned more than half of the 22-acre site, which meant time-consuming and possibly unsuccessful negotiations to acquire their land. Second, the size and scope of the project would violate numerous zoning restrictions on height, density, and use. And third, the powerful Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which runs New York City's subways, buses, and commuter trains, controlled a crucial 8-acre rail yard at the center of the proposed footprint.
So Ratner did what most politically-connected elites do when they run into trouble: He turned to the government—including his old Columbia law school pal Gov. George Pataki—for a bailout. More specifically, Ratner partnered with the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a controversial and embattled state agency with the power to bypass zoning laws and seize private property via eminent domain.
The result of that unholy union is Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, which New York's Court of Appeals—the state's highest court—will hear next Wednesday in Albany. At issue is the ESDC's use of eminent domain to seize privately-owned homes and businesses on behalf of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards.
It's a classic case of eminent domain abuse. Ratner isn't planning to build a bridge or a road or any other legitimate public project that might permit the forceful taking of private property. He wants to build a basketball arena, sell tickets to the games (not to mention sell broadcast rights, advertising space, concessions, and merchandise), and make a big fat profit. That's not public use, it's private gain.
Furthermore, state officials have gone out of their way to put those profits in Ratner's hands. Consider that when the project was officially announced in 2003 there was no mention of blight, which is the state of extreme disrepair frequently cited by the ESDC to trigger an eminent domain taking under state law. Two years later, however, Ratner and the ESDC started claiming that the neighborhood was "blighted." Yet by that point Ratner had already acquired many of the properties he wanted (thanks to eminent domain) and left them empty, thus creating much of the unsightly neglect he now cites in support of his project.
Moreover, the ESDC report counted minor things like "weeds," "graffiti," and "underutilization" as evidence of blight in the various holdout properties. Yet as the Institute for Justice argues in an excellent friend of the court brief it submitted, "A finding of blight premised on underutilization or the presence of weeds in a yard is not a finding of blight—that is, not a finding that property is causing harm to surrounding properties—it is simply a finding that the government does not like what a property owner is doing with a particular piece of property." If this "finding" is allowed to stand, few homes or businesses in New York would be safe from condemnation.
As for that 8-acre rail yard at the center of the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint, the MTA quietly struck a deal with Ratner as early as February 2005 without first opening the property up for competitive bidding. After a public outcry over this blatant act of favoritism, the MTA gave prospective developers a mere 42 days to submit their own "competitive" bids—another transparent attempt to privilege Ratner, whose plans had been in the works for years, over his competitors, who had to scramble to put something together.
Still, the real estate firm Extell submitted an attractive $150 million bid for the rail yard, a property which has been appraised at over $200 million. In response, Ratner bid just $50 million and won, with that figure later negotiated to a lump-sum payment of $100 million. This past June, the MTA decided to pour a little more sugar on the deal, allowing Ratner to pay a mere $20 million up front, with the remaining $80 million due over the next 22 years. Keep in mind that the allegedly cash-strapped MTA recently raised subway and bus fares and received a $2.3 billion bailout from the state.
So what should New York's highest court do about this corporate welfare boondoggle? Remember that New York is one of just seven states that has yet to pass any laws protecting property rights in the wake of the Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed that municipality to seize private property on behalf of the Pfizer Corporation. As Robert McNamara, a staff attorney at the Institute for Justice, told me, "New York is one of the most egregious abusers of eminent domain in the country. With no meaningful change coming from the legislature, New Yorkers need the courts to start reining in these abuses. This case is a perfect place to start."
Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
Why Ayn Rand is Hot Again
The unconservative Ayn Rand and her relationship to the American right
Sources from The New York Times to the United Kingdom's Guardian agree that 2009 is the Year of Ayn Rand. Fortuitously surfing the wave of Rand fascination is the first thorough and largely unbiased book about her life and ideas by a serious American academic, one neither a personal friend nor a bitter enemy of the controversial Russian-born novelist and philosopher. Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, by University of Virginia historian Jennifer Burns, delivers a smart assessment of Rand's life and ideas and how they influenced each other. On what her book's title promises—the connections between Rand and the American right wing—Ms. Burns is less convincing, though she does provide enough data to make it clear why Rand has never really been a "goddess" to the American right.
Why is Rand, dead since 1982, so hot again today? Ironically, big government, one of Rand's betes noires, is stimulating her sales. Her more than 1,000-page 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, sold 25 percent more copies in the first half of this year than it sold in all of last year, shipping a total of 300,000 copies so far this year—tremendous success for a 52-year-old novel.
Readers and pundits alike look at America and see a world scarily reminiscent of Rand's government-choked dystopia in Atlas. It's a world with a struggling economy where political pull matters more than success in the free market, where the government blithely takes over huge transportation industries.
Ms. Burns says Rand was "among the first to identify the problem of the modern state's often terrifying power and make it an issue of popular concern." Seeking the foundation of Rand's ferocious mistrust of government—especially government motivated by altruism—Ms. Burns skillfully re-creates the young Alisa Rosenbaum's (Rand's name before creating the "Rand" identity when she moved to America in 1926) experiences watching Bolshevism destroy her family's way of life in Russia.
Rand saw communism purportedly motivated by a desire to help elevate the downtrodden and, as Ms. Burns writes, became fascinated with "the failure of good intentions." The novelist countered communism with her own moral philosophy that elevated "selfishness"—the belief that your happiness is your proper goal and your accomplishments are a necessary means to happiness. This Randian morality was meant, Ms. Burns wrote, to "eliminate all virtues that could possibly be used in the service of totalitarianism."
Rand came to America hoping to win fame as a Hollywood screenwriter; movies formed her image of a glorious and joyous America, so different from her dismal and deprived Soviet Union. She worked various jobs in the film industry in the 1920s and 1930s. After years of struggle (though with more help from family and friends than Rand, queen of the self-sufficient, liked to make people believe) she became a fabulously successful novelist. Her first big hit was 1943's The Fountainhead (the tale of an architect who blew up a housing project he had designed, on the grounds that his rights as a creator had been violated by unapproved changes to the structure) and then Atlas Shrugged.
Rand was more than a teller of tales. She was an exponent of a philosophy she called Objectivism. Ms. Burns explains thoroughly how Rand, through relationships with many other individualist, conservative and libertarian thinkers and activists in the 1930s and '40s, forged her unique approach to small-government individualism, linked with Aristotelian rationalism.
In later life, she tired of communicating with anyone but her continually narrowing circle of acolytes, and after her affair with her chief disciple, Nathaniel Branden, ended in 1968, she largely retreated from any attempt to spread or further her philosophy, embittered with a culture she thought rejected all her values—moral, political, and esthetic.
READ MORE REASON
Monday, October 12, 2009
October Letter to the Editor by Dr. Richard Davis
Over the last few weeks a few people have offered monetary contributions for my campaign and have seemed a bit surprised when I refused. Let me repeat here that I am accepting no cash contributions. I encourage supporters to pass the word along asking others to vote for me and to seek out groups I might address with my positions, but I will accept no campaign money.
I DO realize that this is NOT how the current system works: the Republicans and Democrats, individually and collectively, take in huge numbers of campaign contribution dollars. When they get into power, they then dole out vastly larger numbers of (tax) dollars in the form of grants, subsidies, tax breaks, government contracts, “stimulus packages”, “bailouts”, various entitlement programs, and so on.
I believe this is not only wrong but self-destructive for the country. Neither Congress nor the executive branch seems to have any clear idea that there are limits to the resources you can expend, however limitless may be the means to expend them.
I also recognize that, even if elected, I cannot change this by myself. My hope is that other candidates in other districts share my concern and goals for this country and its citizens. Only when enough voters in enough districts demand the kind of changes I seek for can we really hope to get those changes. Even so, we need to start somewhere. Why not here?
Sincerely,
Richard J. Davis, D.D.S.
Libertarian for Congress
The Furlough Day Smoke and Mirror Scheme
Like many states Maryland is facing a serious financial crisis that is going to require hard choices not just symbolic gestures. Programs need to be cut. Departments need to be merged. A new crop of legislators need to be elected to end this 20th Century way of doing business.
One idea of using furlough days to help trim the budget is nothing more than band-aid on a cut that needs stitches. However, it is so nice for the governor and other elected officials to take furlough days along with state employees to show solidarity. It does trim the budget somewhat yet not quite enough to make a serious difference and there is still the unintended consequence shooting your self in the foot.
Essentially they are cutting an employee's pay. Which in turn reduces how much they pay income tax. They have also targeted employees who are contracted through grants. Many of these are not career state employees, they are hired for a purpose directed through an agreement to receive a grant, donation, or whatever source of funding that project received. Many of these people work in universities, colleges, for the state, or local counties and municipalities. The unintended consequence could place these grants in jeopardy if the money is not spent as spelled out in the fine print.
An example would be Jane was hired to do a specific task through a grant of $200,000 from DHS, let's say 4 years at $50,000 per year is what she signs in her contract. This money is set aside specifically to pay her. Jane is not a career state employee. Yet, in the great wisdom of our governor, she is furloughed for 10 days which is roughly $2,083.00. This is in violation of her contract, it is also in violation of the amount that the state agreed to in the terms of the grant.
This situation causes several concerns. Are there penalties for changing the contract? Could the grant funding be pulled if the state does this to people hired through grants? Could this affect future grants the state tries to get through this entity?
The other issue is County governments and local municipalities are looking at doing the same thing. Certainly caution is always the best avenue and hopefully these issues have been vetted. It certainly would be moronic if these decisions are made only to find out it is going to cost us more money in legal fees, penalties, or the loss of the income because we were trying to save a few bucks.
One idea of using furlough days to help trim the budget is nothing more than band-aid on a cut that needs stitches. However, it is so nice for the governor and other elected officials to take furlough days along with state employees to show solidarity. It does trim the budget somewhat yet not quite enough to make a serious difference and there is still the unintended consequence shooting your self in the foot.
Essentially they are cutting an employee's pay. Which in turn reduces how much they pay income tax. They have also targeted employees who are contracted through grants. Many of these are not career state employees, they are hired for a purpose directed through an agreement to receive a grant, donation, or whatever source of funding that project received. Many of these people work in universities, colleges, for the state, or local counties and municipalities. The unintended consequence could place these grants in jeopardy if the money is not spent as spelled out in the fine print.
An example would be Jane was hired to do a specific task through a grant of $200,000 from DHS, let's say 4 years at $50,000 per year is what she signs in her contract. This money is set aside specifically to pay her. Jane is not a career state employee. Yet, in the great wisdom of our governor, she is furloughed for 10 days which is roughly $2,083.00. This is in violation of her contract, it is also in violation of the amount that the state agreed to in the terms of the grant.
This situation causes several concerns. Are there penalties for changing the contract? Could the grant funding be pulled if the state does this to people hired through grants? Could this affect future grants the state tries to get through this entity?
The other issue is County governments and local municipalities are looking at doing the same thing. Certainly caution is always the best avenue and hopefully these issues have been vetted. It certainly would be moronic if these decisions are made only to find out it is going to cost us more money in legal fees, penalties, or the loss of the income because we were trying to save a few bucks.
Libertarians suggest Nobel announcements should be moved to April Fool's Day
WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party today suggested that, in the future, the announcement date every year for Nobel Prizes be moved to April 1.
"Unlike the gullible people who listened to The War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938 and thought Martians really were attacking the United States, when I heard this morning that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I changed the channel in disbelief. But, the same thing was being said in multiple places," Libertarian National Committee Chairman William Redpath said.
"The gravity of the Nobel awards has not been augmented by some of their recent selections, including today's announcement, last year's award of the Economics prize to Paul Krugman, or the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore, whose global warming theories he will not defend in open debate. Maybe an early Springtime announcement date would be more appropriate."
Redpath continued, "I didn't know that it was the role of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to be handicapping the future performance of individuals and organizations. Nonetheless, we congratulate President Obama on his award and hope that three-and-a-quarter or seven-and-a-quarter years from now the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will be seen as prescient.
"President Obama will best fulfill the promise of peace that the Nobel Committee apparently sees in him by not trying to cure all the ills of the world, but by working to make the United States an example for the other nations of the world through implementation of a Libertarian foreign policy--military non-interventionism combined with free trade policies in fact, and not just in rhetoric. With those guiding principles, the world will be a freer, safer and more prosperous planet at the conclusion of the Obama Administration."
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LNC executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.
The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.
Despite New Deficit-Cutting Claim, Baucus Bill Is Just Tax-and-Spend
by Michael D. Tanner
The Senate Finance Committee's version of health care reform is being hailed as a model of bipartisan moderation. One Republican may even vote for it.
And it's undeniably an improvement over the bill approved early by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, or the one making its way ever so slowly through the House.
But that's a low bar. In reality, the Finance Committee bill still represents a radical government takeover of the U.S. health care system.
Let's start with the price tag. According to the report just released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost roughly $829 billion over the next 10 years. And, significantly, it is even projected to reduce the budget deficit over 10 years by $81 billion. Of course, both those numbers are misleading.
The $829 billion cost is for the next 10 years, 2010-2019, but the most expensive provisions of the bill don't take effect until July of 2013. The cost over the bill's first 10 years of actual operation is closer to $1.3 trillion.
In addition, the bill assumes that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is already scheduled under current law. The only problem is that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003 — and never has. There is no reason to believe it will do so this time either.
Most importantly, the bill does not achieve its deficit reduction by controlling spending or reducing health care costs. In fact, by the end of the 10-year budget window, the cost of the program is expected to be growing at 8% per year. But revenue from the bill's new taxes would be growing between 10% and 15% per year.
In particular, the bill imposes a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums.
As inflation pushed insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families would find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.
The overall tax increases in the bill are more than double the amount of deficit reduction. This isn't a health care efficiency bill or a cost-containment bill. It is a tax-and-spend bill, pure and simple. READ MORE @ CATO
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Jon Stewart on ACORN
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation
by Timothy B. Lee
An important reason for the Internet's remarkable growth over the last quarter century is the "end-to-end" principle that networks should confine themselves to transmitting generic packets without worrying about their contents. Not only has this made deployment of internet infrastructure cheap and efficient, but it has created fertile ground for entrepreneurship. On a network that respects the end-to-end principle, prior approval from network owners is not needed to launch new applications, services, or content.
In recent years, self-styled "network neutrality" activists have pushed for legislation to prevent network owners from undermining the end-to end principle. Although the concern is understandable, such legislation would be premature. Physical ownership of internet infrastructure does not translate into a practical ability to control its use. Regulations are unnecessary because even in the absence of robust broadband competition, network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.
New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today's network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms.
Nuclear No-Contest
by James P. Hogan
Before the 1950s, the future confronting the human race was bleak. With the global population increasing and becoming more dependent on energy-dense technologies to sustain its food supplies and rising living standards, there seemed no escape from the catastrophe that would come eventually when the coal and the oil ran out. But few worried unduly. It was only after an escape from the nightmare presented itself with the harnessing of nuclear processes and the prospect of unlimited energy that people began to worry. People can be very strange.
Toward Higher Energy Densities
For reasons that have mainly to do with politics and the media's thirst for sensationalism, nuclear energy has been a subject of much disinformation and alarmism for several decades. In fact, nuclear is safer, cleaner, and potentially cheaper and more abundant than any other proven source of energy that the human race has come up with. But beyond this, its real significance is that it represents the next natural step in the evolutionary progression that has marked the history of energy development.
From unaided muscle power, through the use of animals, wood, wind and water, to coal, and oil, finding better ways of doing the work involved in living has reflected the harnessing of more concentrated energy sources. A lot is written about how much energy can be obtained from this source or that source. But if you really want to do things more easily and efficiently – and open up ways to doing new things that were inconceivable before – what counts is energy density. How much can be packed into a given volume. It's easy to calculate how much energy it takes to lift three hundred people across the Atlantic, and how much wood you'd need to burn to release that much energy. Okay, now try building a wood-burning 757. It won't work. The mountain of logs will never get itself off the ground. You need the concentration of jet fuel.
Some people argue that we don't need nuclear power because we already have other ways to generate electricity. This misses the whole point. It would be like somebody in an earlier century telling Michael Faraday that we didn't need electricity because we already had other ways to heat water. What made electricity so different was its ability to do things that were unachievable to any degree with existing technologies, and the whole field of electrical engineering and electronics that we take for granted today was the result. A similar distinction sets nuclear processes apart from conventional sources. All forms of hydrocarbon and other chemical combustion involve energy changes in the outer electron shells of atoms. The energies associated with transitions of the atomic nucleus are thousands of times more intense, and hence represent a breakthrough to the next regime of energy control that the growth of human populations and wealth creation require. The so-called alternatives do not.
Negative Interest Rates
by Gary North
There is considerable discussion about the possibility that the Federal Reserve could and possibly should create a monetary environment in which interest rates are negative.
First, why should it do this?
Second, is this even possible?
Third, if it is possible, under what conditions could/should the FED do this?
I am not speaking here of real interest rates, i.e., the cost of borrowing discounted by the rate of price inflation. That environment existed in the late 1970s when Federal Reserve policy under the pipe-smoking Arthur Burns and then the long-forgotten G. William Miller produced negative real interest rates. Prices were rising at rates higher than T-bill rates or T-bond rates. Investors lost wealth by investing in these assets rather than gold or silver.
There is considerable discussion about the possibility that the Federal Reserve could and possibly should create a monetary environment in which interest rates are negative.
First, why should it do this?
Second, is this even possible?
Third, if it is possible, under what conditions could/should the FED do this?
I am not speaking here of real interest rates, i.e., the cost of borrowing discounted by the rate of price inflation. That environment existed in the late 1970s when Federal Reserve policy under the pipe-smoking Arthur Burns and then the long-forgotten G. William Miller produced negative real interest rates. Prices were rising at rates higher than T-bill rates or T-bond rates. Investors lost wealth by investing in these assets rather than gold or silver.
Check Treasury rates on my site: the department on "Yield Curve."
Check the Median CPI and CPI on my site's department, "Federal Reserve Charts." Or just type "Federal Reserve Charts" on Google. My department is the top link.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Pay More, Get Less
by Michael D. Tanner
That's it?
For the past six months, six members of the Senate Finance Committee, led by Chairman Max Baucus, have been laboring mightily to design a health-care bill. Yesterday they finally brought forth their product — and it leaves us with more questions than answers.
Despite months of work, Baucus hasn't really produced a bill yet, only a 223-page summary of what he hopes a bill will contain.
Here is some of what we know and don't know:
First, he claims the bill would cost only $856 billion. (Remember when that sounded like a lot of money?) In fact, that likely understates the true cost. The Congressional Budget Office only looks at a 10-year budget window, that is, 2010 to 2019. But most of the bill wouldn't even start until 2014. Thus, the "10-year cost" covers only five years of actual spending. Future costs are expected to increase dramatically.
The proposal isn't all bad. Most significantly, it drops the idea of a government-run "public option" in favor of co-ops. Government involvement with these co-ops would essentially be limited to providing start-up grants. The co-ops are unlikely to have much, if any, impact on the cost or availability of health insurance, but are far preferable to a government-run plan.
Baucus would also take the first tentative steps toward letting people buy health insurance across state lines. He'd allow states to establish interstate compacts for insurance purchases starting in 2015, and also let insurers develop national products that could be sold in any state. National plans would be exempt from state-mandated benefits.
This doesn't go far enough, and risks simply transferring regulation and mandates from the state to the regional or national level. Still, it looks like a tiny step in the right direction.
But in the end, this is still a plan that will make Americans pay more and get less.
Its centerpiece is a heavily punitive individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy a government-designed minimum-insurance package. Failure to comply would result in a fine that could run as high as $3,800 for a family of four.
Moreover, the mandate may not apply just to those without insurance today. While Baucus' summary says that those with "grandfathered" plans wouldn't have to change their current policies to satisfy the mandate, it's vague about what qualifies as "grandfathered."
Plus, employer-provided plans — that is, the policies of the vast majority of us — would have just five years to comply with the new insurance regulations, and "grandfathered" plans wouldn't be eligible for any subsidies. There's thus an excellent chance that most people wouldn't actually be able to keep their current plans.
Some seniors would also be forced out of their current arrangements. Baucus would cut payments to Medicare Advantage — which is likely to push many insurers out of the program, while others would raise the premiums they charge seniors. Millions would likely be forced back into traditional Medicare.
(The plan also targets two other GOP health-care reforms of recent years: It would impose new restrictions on Health Savings Accounts and limit the ability of workers to take advantage of tax-free Flexible Spending Accounts.)
Baucus also wants a mandate for employers to provide insurance to workers, though it's less severe than the mandate in the House bills. He has no specific requirement for employers to provide insurance — but any employer who failed to do so would have to pay the cost of all subsidies that the government provides his or her workers to help them pay for insurance on their own, up to $400 a worker.
Those Who Do Not Remember History Are Condemned to Say That "Taking Our Country Back" is a Code Word For Racial Animus
Nick Gillespie
Yesterday on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, University of Pennsylvania sociologist author Michael Eric Dyson appeared, talking about racial animus against President Barack Obama. Dyson is smart, prolific, and ... possessed of an extremely weak memory when it comes to the cliches of the American political scene. At one point, in response to a self-identified black conservative who claimed that criticism of Obama stemmed from policy differences rather than prejudice, Dyson responded
...even though you can look out [at the Taxpayer March on Washington and various Tea Party demonstrations] and say, "Hey, I didn't see anyone say an epithet or hurl a nasty remark against Mr. Obama," you know, some of those posters that had him decked out in what they perceived to be African gear were offensive. The vitriol directed against him—"We want our country back"—I mean, there are code words that are being distributed and we can't be ignorant and pretend that we don't get the code words...
At the September 12 march, I did not personally see any signs such as the ones described by Dyson, though there were a few birther references and posters about how Obama should be president of Kenya (as pathetic and misguided as it gets, for sure). The vast, overwhelming sentiment was precisely as advertised and didn't stray from a very basic and unified message: Voter and taxpayer revulsion at bailouts and government spending that started under Bush and has gotten worse and worse under Obama.
The whole section with Dyson is here and is well worth watching, though I disagree strongly with him about the role of race in contemporary policy discussions, especially about health care (as does the Obama White House, which has gone to pains to dissociate itself from Jimmy Carter's recent proclamation on the matter). However, the idea that saying we're going to take "our country" back is anything other than a transpartisan cliche is ridiculous to the nth degree. Indeed, here's a quote by none other than Barack Obama, circa June 2007, telling an audience:
"It's going to be because of you that we take our country back."
The setting for that comment? The 2007 "Take Back America" conference, a confab of leftys. Read more here.
A little historical perspective goes a long way toward alleviating anxiety about the current debased state of U.S. political discourse, which is never as bad today as it will be tomorrow. And never as great as when Rachel Jackson was being attacked as a bigamist, Grover Cleveland as an absentee father, and Dwight Eisenhower as a "conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist conspiracy."Folk, Labor Musicians Unite for Third Anti-Bush CD Hail to the Thieves, Volume III: Songs to Take Our Country Back! is a rousing call to action from the likes of Billy Bragg, Anne Feeney, Utah Phillips and folk musicians across the country. This new CD lays out the case against George Bush and his cronies with 20 songs, poems and stories in the best of the traveling, storytelling folk tradition.
I raise this because the selective amnesia of virtually all participants in traditional right-left, liberal-conservative, Democratic-Republican politicking is not only frustrating as hell, but completely self-serving. It's one of the reasons why people are turned off by politics (not such a bad thing, perhaps). You know you're not going to have a serious discussion, but rather one that is completely relativistic and revisionist, typically designed to score points in the here and now at the expense of anything approaching history. Republicans were pissed when the Dems dissed George Bush as retarded draft dodger, and now Dems are outraged by all slagging of Obama & Co. Conservatives who spent eight years of accusing Bill Clinton of sodomizing interns in zeppelin hangars at the Mena, Arkansas airstrip thought civility had ended when the first Bushitler poster hit the streets sometime around January 2001. And on and on.
NICK GILLESPIE ON FOX NEWS' FREEDOM WATCH WITH JUDGE NAPOLITANO
Why do politicians treat the Constitution like a pair of stretch pants?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)