Q&A: What's wrong with "stimulus" spending?

Date: Mon, 08/16/2010
Author: Mark Grannis

One of my best teachers admonishes me to do more than preach to the choir. Specifically, while many people already deplore the Bush-Obama bailouts and stimulus bills, there are others (including Paul Krugman and many of his readers) who still believe, or at least hope, that aggressive overspending will restore the economy to vigor. What can I say to stimulus supporters to change their minds?

I can’t do justice to such a big question in a blog post; for that the reader must consult the works of the many economists who do not share Professor Krugman’s view of the world. Some of them, like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, also have Nobels to their credit. They don’t happen to write in the New York Times, which is a shame for all of us. But if you haven’t read their views somewhere, you should seek them out. Here, here, and here are three good places to start.

I’ll emphasize just two points here: First, we have evidence that stimulus policies are not working and have not worked in the past. And second, if we consult our own experience of what makes us spend or invest or hire, we see that heavy government involvement in the economy not only fails to “stimulate” much economic activity, it actually makes us less likely to take the kinds of actions that are necessary in order to get the economy back on track.

We’ve been allegedly “stimulating the economy” nonstop since 2002, through massive deficit spending and an unprecedented amount of easy money from the Federal Reserve which kept interest rates low despite the red ink. But the first overt “stimulus” bill that I recall in the current downturn was President Bush’s $168 billion version in February 2008. This, you’ll recall, was the program by which we borrowed money in order to mail ourselves checks and take ourselves out to dinner.

Next, skipping over a few smaller bailouts, we had the Bush administration’s bank bailout bill of October 2008. For that, we authorized another $700 billion. In addition, many in Congress resisted a $700 billion bank bailout but signed on after it was linked to a $150 billion tax cut that passed at the same time.

Then we had the massive spending spree that the Obama administration packaged as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, for which we borrowed another $787 billion. And since then, smaller mini-binges for automakers, appliance manufacturers, etc. (A comprehensive listing is here.)

What have we stimulated? Unemployment is higher today than it was before we did any of this, and most economists are not expecting things to get much better anytime soon.

These results corroborate the experience we had with stimulus policies during the Great Depression. President Hoover tried everything to stimulate the economy from 1929 to 1932, but nothing worked. Even the unprecedented stimulus policies of FDR’s New Deal didn’t do the job. Not until after World War II – when government spending fell precipitously in 1945-47—did our economy get healthy again.

Even Japan’s experience with stimulative fiscal policy gives us reason to doubt its effectiveness. As a group of 300 economists stated in a joint letter they signed in opposition to the first major Obama stimulus bill, “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

But stimulus defenders, particularly those belonging to the Keynesian school, can make the (untestable) claim that things would have been worse without the stimulus spending; or that the reason earlier stimulus attempts failed was that they weren’t big enough. That’s pure ideology, but it’s not impossible, so let’s turn to a couple of important theoretical reasons for questioning the Keynesians’ story.

People who aren’t actually engaged in business often look at the economy as a collection of aggregate statistics like GDP and the unemployment rate. Those aggregate statistics don’t affect real-world economic behavior like spending or hiring. Think: Do you make your purchasing decisions based on GDP or the unemployment rate? Or do you consult your personal circumstances? One of the central insights of libertarian economists is that no matter how many people’s actions you’re trying to examine, every single person in the group will act “at the micro level,” that is, based on his or her own desires, resources, opportunities, and alternatives. We can’t change what economic actors are doing just by goosing government statistics with extra spending.

New productive activity, like starting a business and hiring some people, occurs only when individuals can predict a good return on their investment. So imagine that you’re a recently unemployed chef, and you’re wondering whether to wait things out or use your savings to open a new restaurant. You know there’s a lot of competition, but you’re confident your food will be tastier than theirs. You also know that some people won’t want to pay what you want to charge, but you realize you don’t need to win every customer in order to succeed financially. Looking only at your potential customers and your potential competitors, you’re convinced it’s a good idea.

But there are other risks you can’t evaluate as easily. You understand your taxes may go up at the end of this year, and your profit margins were already pretty tight to begin with. You may even get hit with a soda tax. You know your health insurance costs are going up, even if you don’t understand when or how. You keep seeing horrifying charts of what the Federal Reserve is doing to the money supply, and you worry that once a recovery actually comes, inflation may make your costs rise uncontrollably. And you keep hearing that government might regulate the transfat content of the food you serve. Because these things are all controlled by government rather than by you or your customers or your employees, they’re not only outside your control, they’re beyond your power to predict. So you sit tight, because of what economists call “regime uncertainty.”

In this environment, it could hardly matter less to you whether the government is or is not spending, say, another $26 billion to plug holes in municipal government budgets. You don’t know how much of that money will come to your community, or what your municipal government will do with it, or what will happen next year if the funding isn’t renewed by the next Congress. If the success of your restaurant depends on that, it’s not a risk you’re willing to take. It’s a safe bet that lots of people will always like good food at a fair price, because they always have. But there’s just no telling what Congress might do—particularly a Congress dumb enough to borrow money to destroy cars. (View a nice video on "cash for clunkers" here.)

The government could try to stimulate the opening of restaurants with a new-restaurant-owner tax credit, and that might stimulate you. But it might not, because you’re not going to open the restaurant at all if it’s only profitable in year one when the government is subsidizing it. And in any event, the restaurant stimulus bill isn’t going to create any more certainty for your neighbor who is wondering whether to hire another salesperson at his bookstore. On the contrary, the more the government meddles, the less attractive most private investments become.

Stimulus spending is not entirely without effect, of course. If you happen to run a business that supplies what the government is buying, you’ll profit handsomely. (Our recent fiscal and monetary policies have been very good for banks, for example.) But the people who take in all the hot money aren't as dumb as Congress seems to be hoping. They know the sudden increase in the demand for their services is artificial, and they know the government can’t keep spending this way forever. So they’re unlikely to change their behavior very much based on something they expect to be a one-time windfall. They’re more likely to salt the money away for the rainy day they have every reason to expect soon. And that's one reason why banks, who are supposed to be in the business of lending money, have not been lending money.

Many 8th District voters know exactly what I’m talking about. A lot of us have done very well as a result of the increasing concentration of power and money in Washington. But it’s bad for the country, and ultimately nothing that is bad for the country can possibly be good for the Washington suburbs. Not in the long run, anyway. And with our national debt above $13 trillion mark, our unfunded future debts above $45 trillion, and both numbers rising briskly, the “long run” may be shorter than we think.

We have to shrink government,whether we want to or not.

Over the last ten years, Democrats and Republicans alike, in Congress and in the White House, have borrowed and spent us into the worst economic conditions in living memory. The government only admits to an unemployment rate of just under 10%, but surveys and better private estimates show that about 20% of us who want full-time work can't find it. The unprecedented amount of paper money we're pumping into the economy is not actually creating jobs or generating wealth.

That's bad enough, but a recent study from the Bank of International Settlements gave us the really bad news: Our total national debt and our future entitlement liabilities, taken together, are so large that we will be in danger of national default (like Greece) unless we take drastic action immediately. How drastic? The BIS estimates that in order to achieve the very modest goal of taking our total debts back to 2007 levels over a 20-year period, we would need to move from a deficit equal to 7.1% of GDP, to a surplus of 2.4 % of GDP, and keep the budget that way for 20 years. That would require almost $1.4 trillion per year in deficit reduction, starting now. That's some serious budget-cutting.

Unfortunately, our elected officials are not yet having a serious conversation (at least not in public) about how we're going to cut spending consistent with our national priorities. Here are some conversation starters:

End the Bush/Obama bailout and stimulus policies. We should never have gone down that road, and no one should be surprised that these policies didn't work; after all, if it were possible to get richer by going deeper and deeper into debt, we wouldn't have experienced a downturn to begin with. Now that we know the policy is a flop, we need to swear off any so-called "stimulus" programs -- no more "cash for clunkers," "cash for caulkers," or cash for any other fill-in-the-blank interest group. We also need to restore some necessary fear of failure on Wall Street by repudiating the "Too Big to Fail" doctrine and declaring that the era of No Banker Left Behind is over.
Get rid of corporate welfare and other gimmicky tax credits. These tax credits proliferate under Democrats and Republicans alike because they're easy to hide in our sprawling 5.5-mllion-word tax code, and people don't usually pay a price at re-election time for giving away tax breaks. But the fact is that Congress routinely uses the tax code not just for the legitimate purpose of raising revenue, but for the less admirable purpose of throwing bones to politically connected interest groups. One recent estimate says these "tax expenditures" amount to about $1 trillion per year.
Scrub the budget with Article I in mind. We need a federal government that stays within the limits of the dozen or so powers that are granted in Article I of the Constitution. Toward that end, we should demand that Congress specify in each spending bill precisely which part of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to act in that area. A few hints: Bank bailouts and investments in failing automakers are not in Article I. Neither are free colonoscopies or free prescription drugs.
Eliminate, transfer, or privatize programs we don't need. Farm subsidies are a great example of this. They were originally conceived as a way to help farmers survive low food prices, at a time when farmers typically had lower incomes than non-farmers. Now, however, farmers are on average wealthier than non-farmers, and in 2003 55% of the subsidies went to just 6% of the recipients. Yet we still spend $30 billion per year on these subsidies. The Cato Institute figures we can save $108 billion per year in the Department of Agriculture alone. Cato has some other great ideas for savings as well.
Sunset everything. Here's the good news: If you were starting from scratch and your job was to think of enough important government functions to cost $3.8 trillion dollars per year, you would almost certainly fail. You couldn't possibly dream up that much government, let alone that much necessary government. Thus, the budget problem is not that there is not enough money to fund the things we need; it's that there is so much money sloshing around in Congress that our representatives have not been very diligent about insisting on a strong showing of need each and every time a program is reauthorized.
Refocus defense spending on defense. We've gone too long thinking that fiscal policy and foreign policy are entirely separate issues. The fact is that we cannot afford our worldwide empire. I say much more about reorienting our military commitments elsewhere, but suffice it to say here that the amount we need to spend on defense is much less than the amount we currently spend.

Mark Grannis
Libertarian for Congress, Maryland District 8

Q&A: Do Libertarians oppose civil rights laws?

Date: Mon, 08/02/2010
Author: Mark Grannis
Earlier this year, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul drew unfavorable press attention for his remarks about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even though Paul is a Republican, his libertarian sympathies led some people who had never paid much attention to libertarians to ask whether we are soft on racial bigotry.

Do libertarians really believe that all civil rights legislation was wrong? Would we repeal the laws protecting voting rights and desegregating public accommodations if we could?

For “the short answer,” let me start with Section 3.5 of the Libertarian Party platform, which “condemn[s] bigotry as irrational and repugnant” and adds, “Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.” The preamble likewise states “that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world.” Libertarians want a government that is radically neutral toward its citizens. Libertarians therefore proudly support laws like the Voting Rights Act that protect political equality, as well as those provisions of the Civil Rights Act that banned discrimination in voter registration practices and prohibited racial segregation in government agencies, public schools, and other public facilities.

But what about the part of the Civil Rights Act that banned private discrimination? That’s where Libertarians draw attention to the downsides of government intervention. Laws banning private discrimination can be justified on libertarian principles, but probably only as a response to the historically unique issue of race. To understand the pros and cons of anti-discrimination laws, let’s look a little more closely at our Constitution and our history than either Paul or his critics did.

Race in Our History

The actual history of the fight for civil rights in this country is not the good-government fairy tale in which some cable celebrities seem to believe. Their story seems to be that 1964 was the year an enlightened government finally ended 350 years of private discrimination by immoral individuals. That is wildly misleading. The truth is that during those 350 years black Americans were victimized first and foremost by governments. Governments treated African-American slaves as sub-human until 1865. Governments treated runaway slaves like lost property that had to be returned. Nearly a century after the Civil War, governments still treated black Americans like second-class citizens, and governments looked the other way and refused to protect black Americans from violent attacks on their lives, liberty, and property.

Meanwhile, classical liberals like William Lloyd Garrison—people who today would be called libertarians—agitated privately for racial justice. These proto-libertarians attacked slavery as “man-stealing,” a violation of the slave’s self-ownership. And the latter-day civil rights movement behind Martin Luther King was a model of powerful non-violent witness by individual citizens who refused to accept the injustice of their laws. Governments did not lead that movement; governments were more often aiming the firehoses and loosing the dogs.

The story of the Civil Rights Act, then, is not that pure-hearted legislators finally prevailed over wicked owners of segregated lunch counters; it is that individuals with a thirst for equal justice under the law put their very lives on the line for racial equality, and in so doing they finally shamed Congress into exercising its constitutional power to stop state governments from treating blacks as second-class citizens.

Race in Our Constitution

Sadly, most non-lawyers have never heard of Congress’s express constitutional power to secure political equality for Americans of all races, but that power was granted to Congress at the end of the Civil War, in the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1 of that Amendment finally extended citizenship to black Americans and prohibited states from depriving freed slaves of the full equality to which they were entitled. Section 5 of that Amendment stated, with remarkable breadth, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” That’s what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was doing.

Unfortunately, Congress also claimed, unnecessarily, that the Act could be justified as a regulation of interstate commerce—and that’s what has raised concerns among people who favor small government. Constitutional law typically respects precedent, so each expansive interpretation of government power in one case paves the way for further expansions in other cases. An expansive use of the power to remedy racial discrimination can easily be limited to the historically unique issue of race; but an expansive use of the commerce power necessarily expands Congressional power over activities that have nothing to do with race or any kind of discrimination.

For example, if Congressional power over commerce is broad enough to justify laws that force sellers to sell to certain buyers, then it is presumably also broad enough to force buyers to buy from certain sellers. And there’s nothing hypothetical about that; just this spring, we saw Congress invoke its commerce power to require all Americans to buy compulsory health insurance. Likewise, if Congress can regulate the racial composition of a business’s employees under its commerce power, then Congress can presumably also use the commerce power to regulate what those employees are allowed to earn—another encroachment on economic liberty that is unfortunately no longer hypothetical. Other bills in recent years have relied on the commerce power in order to place federal limits on how much carbon we can emit, or how fast we can drive. Thus, Congress’s invocation of its commerce power to pass the Civil Rights Act was pregnant with the possibility of even more intrusion on private action in the years ahead. That would not have been true if Congress had relied only on its power to implement the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Price of Purging Prejudice

With that historical and constitutional context, we can finally get to the heart of the controversy over Rand Paul’s remarks. No true libertarian can be soft on racial bigotry; we are zealous in our defense of each individual’s right to equal justice under law. But we pay dearly with our liberty if we cede to Congress the power to compel economic transactions between unwilling participants. Many libertarians believe that the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on government-sponsored segregation would have been sufficient to end private discrimination throughout the south. We can’t know for sure, but if so then it was unwise to expand federal power that way. And in any event it was unwise to expand the federal commerce power when a more specific power to combat racial discrimination was already in the Constitution. Our historical experience of how power corrupts tells us that the individual liberties of all Americans would be safer today if we all recognized that the Civil Rights Act was entirely about racial equality, and was in no way typical of the kind of power Congress should exercise over private businesses.

Racial discrimination is our nation’s original sin; the greatest stain on our founding and the cause of our bloodiest war. We are a better society because of civil rights legislation—not as good a society as if racial discrimination had never existed, but that option was not on the menu for anyone alive today. The libertarian insight is that our willingness to let government depart from strict neutrality—to let government be non-neutral toward bigots—set a precedent that made government more powerful and our liberty less secure. Acknowledging that, and showing an appropriate wariness about government power, is the least we owe the memory of those who suffered so long under government-sponsored racial aggression.

Libertarians call federal worker pay gap 'appalling'

WASHINGTON - Recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that federal government workers get compensation, on average, more than twice as high as private-sector workers. That gap has expanded dramatically over the last decade. Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:

"The numbers are appalling. In 2009, the average private-sector worker received $61,051 in total compensation, but the average federal government worker received $123,049. There is no excuse for this enormous, and growing, compensation gap.

"I guess you just can't beat a federal job. Very high pay, unbelievable benefits, extremely generous retirement plans, and near-perfect job security.

"And those retirement plans are often unfunded pensions, which will have to be paid by taxing our children and grandchildren, who never had the opportunity to vote when they were created.

"Apparently wishing to add insult to injury, government employee union reps have claimed that federal workers are entitled to their sky-high compensation because they are more educated and skilled than the rest of us. I have had many personal experiences with federal employees that indicate the exact opposite.

"The problem is that federal worker compensation is not set by the free market -- it's set by government fiat, which causes it to be artificially generous. Another factor is the monopoly government employee unions, which are able to extort that compensation up to even higher levels.

"One sure sign that federal employees are overpaid is that they never quit. Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute has noted, '...in 2009, private sector employees quit at a rate that was more than eight times higher than federal employees.... This indicates that federal employees recognize that the generous combination of wages, benefits, and job security is hard to match in the private sector, so they stay put.'

"Libertarians support minimum government and maximum freedom. Unfortunately, federal employees have incentives to make government bigger, which makes us less free. With government employment paying more than the private sector, the rational self-interest of many workers will drive them to seek employment with the federal government.

"That's a formula for disaster.

"Libertarians want productive people working in the private sector to build our economy, not working for the government and hurting our economy.

"I would like to see an across-the-board pay cut for all federal workers. That would reduce federal spending, reduce the deficit, and reduce the insult to American private-sector workers. It also just might encourage some federal government employees to quit their jobs and seek more productive work in the private sector."

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.

Obama and the oil spill

Libertarian Quotes

"It's illegal to say to a voter "Here's $100, vote for me." So what do the politicians do? They offer the $100 in the form of Health Care, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, tobacco subsidies, grain payments, NEA payments, and jobs programs."

– Don Farrar - average guy, age 51

Libertarian Quotes

"One of the things the government can't do is run anything. The only things our government runs are the post office and the railroads, and both of them are bankrupt."

– Lee Iacocca

The Lion of Liberty Award

I would like to present the first ever Lion of Liberty Award.  This is bestowed upon those individuals who stand on the fronline in the war between statism and freedom.  Those who, despite constant criticism, threats, and willingness to put their names on the line, stand firm in their principles and fight for Liberty regardless of political affiliation. 

Based on those qualifications Mike and Julie Brewington are presented with the Lion of Liberty Award and shall forever be known as Lions of Liberty.

In June Mike decided to run Wicomico County Council At-Large.  He hails as a conservative Democrat and often uses the phrase "raise chickens not taxes."  His wife Julie decided run for Maryland House of Delegates in District 38A.  Both have been deeply involved in the Tea Party movement and the Americans for Prosperity. 

Establishment politicians and their attack machine have launched some of the nastiest personal attacks on them for their political stances and willingness to fight to make difference.  I for one applaud them and thank them for their work.

Thoughts from Jefferson

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

    –Thomas Jefferson

Libertarian Quotes

"A nation that expects the government to prevent churches from burning, to control the price of bread or gasoline, to secure every job, and to find some villain for every dramatic accident risks an even larger loss of life and liberty."

– William A. Niskanen, For a Less Responsive Government, Cato Policy Report,

Q&A: Do we need government regulation to keep consumer products safe?

Q&A: Do we need government regulation to keep consumer products safe?

Date: Mon, 08/09/2010
Author: Mark Grannis

Government regulations are so pervasive that many people assume without question both that the regulations are helpful and that they are necessary. However, once we challenge these assumptions, we see that government regulation is frequently not only unnecessary, but futile or even counterproductive. Rather than pretending that government always knows what’s good for us and what’s not, Libertarians prefer to let individual consumers decide which products they trust. Not every product on the market is safe—but that’s true even of products the government has declared to be safe, and we’re better off knowing that the responsibility rests with us.

A recent question I received about expanding the FDA’s role in regulating cosmetics illustrates the point. The question came with a link to this video, which argues that there are too many toxins in personal care products like shampoos and deodorants, and that the FDA should be given new authority to ban the use of toxic ingredients in these products. The video is well done, and I really encourage people to watch it and consider the “toxics in, toxics out” message when they’re buying consumer products. But the video claims that additional FDA regulation will be more effective than relying on consumers to do the right thing. That argument just doesn’t wash.

First, the makers of the video assume that FDA regulation will make our shampoos safer, even though we’re talking about regulations that have yet to be written, sometime in the future. But wait a minute: Didn't the same video tell us a moment earlier that the cosmetics makers had captured the government regulatory process and had subverted it so that everything was now allowed in? Yes! So why should we expect regulation to work better the second time? We shouldn’t.

It doesn’t even matter why the manufacturers escaped regulation the first time around. Maybe industry produced scientific evidence that genuinely convinced Congress or the FDA’s experts that there was no need for regulation. Or maybe the case for regulation was pretty strong, but government listened to the industry and its lobbyists because they were paying close attention to the rulemaking process while the rest of us were off living our lives. Either way, there is good reason to expect the same result the second time around.

Second, the makers of the video assert that we cannot address this problem without FDA regulation. But here the video contradicts itself by pointing out that “green chemistry” for consumer products is already a flourishing field. Why is it flourishing? Because there's a market for non-toxic consumer products! Tom's of Maine, Seventh Generation, Kiss My Face—there are lots of brands on the market that attempt to make us clean and shiny without using toxic chemicals. What government agency should we thank for that? None. It was private enterprise.

The video suggests private enterprise won’t work here because a single consumer can’t affect what P&G puts into its shampoo. But when the video turns to the lawmaking process, suddenly the narrator is one of many people who all want the same thing. Where were all these people when P&G was figuring out what to put in the shampoo? Why wouldn’t a group of consumers big enough to get Congress's attention be big enough to get P&G's? Shouldn’t it be easier to get P&G's attention, since P&G makes lots of shampoos without requiring any one of them to be favored by more than 50% of all voters?

The answer is that the government doesn’t require the assent of 50% of all voters either; it responds to small groups of people who are zealous enough and influential enough to pull the right legislative and regulatory levers – the infamous “special interests.” Thus, the real case for government regulation of your deodorant is not that you and I and all our neighbors can join hands and rein in P&G; the real case is that a relatively small group of people who focus on the toxicity of consumer products think they can choose your deodorant better than you can. Libertarians don’t think that’s good enough.

Third, we can never eliminate the risk of mistake, so individuals should have the freedom to balance risks as they see fit. Governments may approve unsafe products, or ban safe products, or conduct decades of tests that fail to produce complete consensus. Statists argue that this uncertainty makes it necessary for government to take the decision away from us because we have imperfect information. But that ignores the existence of videos like the one I’m critiquing—which in fact does an excellent job of informing us about potential risks. It’s true that I can’t evaluate toxicity on my own, but it’s not true that government is the only source I can turn to for help.

Moreover, this problem of imperfect information is not limited to the decisions we make as consumers. If ’m not smart enough to know which shampoo ingredients are toxic, then I’m also not smart enough to know whether an FDA action permitting these chemicals is a good decision or a bad one. That means I have to rely on others for my information either way; the only difference is that with the free market I end up with the ability to weigh the information, make my own decision, and live with the consequences. I may be left with an uncertain and somewhat dissatisfying tradeoff, with pros and cons for each choice, but that’s a lousy excuse for asking the government to take the choice away from me.

Finally, some argue that leaving the market unregulated will mean that rich people can buy more expensive "green" products that not everyone can afford. But wait: If price is the only reason someone is currently not buying a green shaving cream, how is government regulation going to help? Government regulation will not make the green product cheaper; on the contrary, it will make the green product more expensive, both by adding new costs of doing business and by removing marketplace alternatives that the FDA doesn’t like. Thus, the real effect of regulation here is to make the average joe spend more on green shaving cream whether he wants to or not. Folks who want FDA regulations are saying the average joe is a fool not to spend his money on green shaving cream now, so they’re going to remove other shaving creams from the market to protect him from his own folly.

But what if the average joe is not a fool? What if he just thinks other items in his budget (more food, a nicer apartment, cholesterol medication) are more important? What if the right shaving cream for Joe to buy depends on what’s important to Joe? Libertarians think we ought to let Joe sort that out.

Kick starting the green economy

Libertarian Quotes

"The government was set to protect man from criminals – and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government."

– Ayn Rand

Libertarians oppose record federal spending levels

WASHINGTON - The White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released its Mid-Session Review. On reviewing the report, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle called the report's spending projections "disappointing and troubling."

According to the report, federal spending was 24.7% of GDP in 2009, and is expected to be 24.6% this year, rising to 25.1% in 2011. (All years are fiscal years.)

Hinkle commented, "The federal government is commanding a larger percentage of our economy than it has at any time in American history, except a few years during World War II. Instead of free citizens making our own economic decisions, the federal government is making those decisions for us."

Hinkle added, "At the beginning of the twentieth century, the federal government spent less than five percent of GDP."

The report projects that federal spending will still be over 23% of GDP in the year 2020. "In other words," said Hinkle, "the White House is admitting that its spending will be at record-high levels as far as the eye can see. That's great for special interests who get their money from the federal government, but it's very bad news for the rest of us.

"I'm seeing visions of low economic growth and high dependence on government. Future generations are facing economic hardship instead of prosperity.

"The current crop of politicians in Washington simply don't have what it takes to reverse this damage. Democrats and Republicans have proven decade after decade that they are incapable of doing anything but grow government. In just the last ten years, they have worked together to give us two costly wars, a giant Medicare expansion, and the TARP bailouts, among many other massive new expenses.

"It's time for American voters to start thinking outside the box, and electing Libertarians to office."

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.

Once in a while Patrick Buchanan is right

"With all that IMF money, the Thailand's and Mexico's are spared the consequences of their fiscal incompetence, and Wall Street's heavy hitters are spared the consequences of their stupid investments. The global economy is a rigged game, rigged so Third World politicians, rich investors and global corporations win – and U.S. taxpayers lose."


– Patrick J. Buchanan

Libertarian Quotes

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

– C. S. Lewis

Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury needs to go to the next level

The revitalization of Downtown Salisbury has gone through numerous studies by various groups over the years. There are a variety of opinions on what will work, what has failed, and how to go about it. In my opinion there are several factors that are key in successfully accomplishing this goal.

First, there needs to be an anchor business that will draw people there such as a Trader Joes, Whole Foods or another nationally recognized business. These are two businesses that could really bring people there. Also, secondary anchors such as an Apple Store or Pottery Barn are businesses that will bring people from all over Delmarva here.

Secondly, closing downtown Salisbury to traffic is another key component. This will create an atmosphere such as Santa Monica's Promenade. As a part of this the city should allow restaurants to have more space for outdoor dining and allow food stands in peak traffic time.

Third, create an enterprise zone and tax benefits through the county and city to entice these businesses to come here. It is small price to pay when you are able to help create jobs and boost the economic condition of this area of town. This will also help make it even more desirable to live downtown and help create a strong customer base.

Fourth, I encourage Mayor Ireton to personally contact these companies and invite them to our city with open arms. The Mayor needs to be the economic champion for our city and aggressively approach companies to do business here.

Lastly, bring back the movie theater but make it a multipurpose center. Whether it is independent films, classic movies, concerts, we need entertainment downtown on a consistent basis.

We all recognize the importance of creating a unique image for Downtown Salisbury that will retain her classic charm. Third Fridays is good start and I applaud Mayor Ireton for championing that. It is time we take the next step.

Dr. Richard Davis August Letter to the Editor

Albert Einstein reportedly said that doing the things you've always done the way you've always done them while expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

For a long time we've focused on candidates' ability to raise campaign funds and use those funds to advertise to get name recognition as a way to judge their strength as candidates. They raise and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from other people. Then, when they are elected and go to Washington, we expect them to be careful with our tax dollars, which the IRS collects for them at minimal (if any) effort to themselves.

If you really expect a candidate to be careful with your money, maybe you should look at how he treats it during a campaign. I don't want your money for ads and campaign literature because I think that's wasteful, especially in an economy where money is tight for so many people. If you want to contribute, give money to a local cause of your choice in honor of my campaign, so it will do some good locally in any case.

If elected, I will do my best to take the same approach -- making every effort to limit what money goes to Washington to begin with, keeping money for local and state projects in those areas where it needs to be used. Meanwhile, for name recognition I depend on those who read this and agree with me to spread the word.


Dr. Richard J. Davis

Michael Calpino Letter to the Editor

Benjamin Franklin said that no matter what, only two things in life were certain -- death and taxes. There is usually little we can do when our number comes up, but with our taxes, particularly in a representative republic, we should have some say. We all know that at some level, we pay taxes to receive certain benefits from our government: a judicial system, police presence and basic infrastructure.

Of course, we also get an army of overpaid bureaucrats, bridges to nowhere and redundant programs that generate more waste and problems than they solve. We hate to see our money squandered, but it becomes doubly offensive if we are forced to pay "more than our fair share."

The municipal tax differential has come up again, and again, municipal residents are being forced to pay extra for redundant services. The county's excuse to deny them? Any extra money they pay goes into the school district. Why should city residents pay more for the schools than others? Can't our county officials see the inequity of taking more than is required from some taxpayers for any reason?

If the cashier at McDonald's kept your change, wouldn't you be upset? The tax differential is just and right; it should not be dismissed by the county out of hand. We do not exist to serve the insatiable appetite of government and it is wrong to require some to sacrifice more of their flesh to the beast than others.

Michael Calpino

LP Monday Message: If Libertarians save one life

July 26, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

The War in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost nine years. According to the Washington Post, there have been 1,189 American military deaths, which is more than two per week.

And of course, today's big news about WikiLeaks raises a lot of questions about whether we've been honestly told how badly the war is going.

I'm often asked how Libertarian candidates make a difference in cases where they don't win their election. We have over 150 candidates running for U.S. Representative, and over 20 for U.S. Senator.

Here's how: ending the war sooner will save both lives and money. I'm also convinced that ending the war sooner will reduce terrorism, although I understand some others disagree.

I'm not attempting to put a dollar value on a life saved, but I've seen reports that some environmental and safety regulations cost anywhere from millions to billions per life saved. The cost of training and equipping replacement military personnel is also very high.

The entire national Libertarian Party budget, plus all of the funds raised by Libertarian candidates and affiliates, is a few million dollars at most.

I don't know when this war will end. But if our party and our candidates help end this war just one week faster, that alone could save two American soldiers' lives, plus contractors, and many more civilians. And with just a few million dollars in spending, Libertarians could save lives at a far lower cost than what the government spends on its attempts to save lives.

I think we can do even better than that, but I'm just trying to make the point that even a small improvement makes the whole effort worthwhile.

Libertarian candidates for Congress can help end this war by putting pressure on incumbents, particularly Democrats, who voted to authorize Afghanistan and Iraq. Simply mentioning it in a voter survey or media appearance makes a difference.

Any Libertarian volunteer can write a letter to the editor reminding people that Libertarians support a non-interventionist foreign policy. I often think that short letters work better. You could try, "I thought President Obama and the Democrats would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home quickly, but I was wrong. Congressman ___ voted to authorize the wars and keeps voting for additional war spending. That's why I'm voting
Libertarian."

You can check here to see if there's a Libertarian running for Congress in your district.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

The possible dynamics of the Tea Party

NOTE:  I posted this because Michael Swartz is a very fair writer and a member of what I call the "Liberty Movement" here on the shore.  He always presents an interesting observation of the issues at hand.   --- Muir Boda

by Michael Swartz

In terms of sheer numbers, it can be argued that the local Tea Party movement is in decline. The original Tea Party in April 2009 drew about 400 people in a pouring rain, while a subsequent July 4th gathering later that year draw a good crowd on a holiday. But this year, despite beautiful April weather, the crowd at the Tea Party was noticeably slimmer and there was no local July 4th gathering.

Yet the movement may simply be in a state of maturation, with a number of those who participated early on in the protests taking the step forward into electoral politics. On Saturday night a number of Tea Party candidates gathered for a fundraiser at the Westside Community Center, one organized by District 2 County Council aspirant Mike Calpino. While I did not attend that event, this blog post at Right Coast can give you an idea on how it went. (Worthy of noting is that Right Coast author Julie Brewington is a candidate for Delegate herself.)

Read the rest at his Examiner.com page

Congress fiddles while the economy burns

Date: Fri, 07/23/2010
Author: Mark Grannis
This afternoon the White House once again availed itself of the rather sophomoric tactic of scheduling the release of really important but really bad news on a Friday afternoon so that fewer people would notice it. What was the bad news? That budget deficits for this year and next are likely to be even higher than the $1.4 trillion we had to borrow to keep the lights on last year.

Let me write that again, because I fear that our use of the word "trillion" is beginning to hide the magnitude of our budget problems. The bad news is that budget deficits for this year and next are likely to be even higher than the $1,400,000,000,000 we had to borrow to keep the lights on last year.

It's hard for me to write anything about this because it's hard for me to believe I have to. Isn't it obvious that we simply can't continue this way? Wasn't it already obvious when the deficits were less than half as large as they are now? All that has happened in the interim is that the change we so obviously need has become harder, and we have less time to effect it.

But since the point has so far been lost on my own senators and congressman, and on most others, let me offer four brief observations, all inspired by the Washington Post's Friday afternoon dispatch on this disturbing development.

First, note how large these deficits are in percentage terms. It's not just that we're borrowing $1,400,000,000,000 per year; it's that we're borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar we spend. For every three dollars the federal government takes in, Congress has spent not just an extra nickel or even an extra quarter, but an extra two bucks. In other words, they're not even close!

Why does this matter? Partly because it tells us that no one's really trying very hard to balance the budget; it is as if no one really remembers that ideally the expenditures should be lower than the revenues. No one in Congress seems to remember what zero means anymore. (It means, "Stop spending.") Obviously, the correct response to this on our part is to fire Congress.

But perhaps more importantly, it also tells us that it's ludicrous for people to approach our budget problems by talking about how to save money here and there on existing programs. The only way to limit the size and cost of government is to limit the number of things we ask government to do. The only way to cut our government back down to a size we can live with is to eliminate all the extraneous programs that our founders never intended for a national government to do in the first place. The road to fiscal responsibility in 2011 and beyond runs right through Article I of our Constitution.

My second brief observation is that it's no mere coincidence that the deficit failed to improve in a year in which Congress decided not to bother passing a budget. If your budget were this out of whack -- and if one spouse is out of work, it may be -- then surely the first thing you would do is sit down and make a plan. Somehow expenditures need to be brought into balance with revenues, and there's no budget fairy that will do that for us while we're sleeping (or passing expensive entitlements, or even trashing the first amendment by passing new regulations of campaign speech). Saving money -- big money -- did I mention that we're talking about $1,400,000,000,000? -- takes thought; it takes effort. Without a blueprint for saving money, is it any wonder that no money was saved?

Remember this in November: In the face of a looming fiscal disaster capable of shaking the very foundations of our national government, our current representatives have done nothing. They didn't even take a shot at it. Again, obviously, the correct response to this on our part is to fire Congress.

Third, cutting the deficit in half is an idiotic goal. I've never met budget director Peter Orszag (who apparently wants credit for still being "on track" to achieve this goal), but I refuse on principle to believe that he is dumb enough to think that cutting our deficit in half by the final year of President Obama's term counts as any kind of policy success. We have got to stop thinking of budget deficits like annual scorecards that don't have continuing long-term consequences. Last year's deficit is not like last night's baseball score. Every year in which any deficit exists raises the national debt, and it's the national debt that determines how much of next year's budget gets soaked up in interest payments we can't do anything about. Even in the unlikely event that we remain "on track" to have a deficit of "only" $700,000,000,000 during the President's last year in office, that will be really, really bad. This is not a good-news-bad-news story. There is no silver lining.

Finally, it is nothing short of contemptible for our elected representatives to try to excuse their malfeasance by pointing to the creation of a bipartisan commission to balance the budget. We already had a bipartisan group that's supposed to balance the budget every year. It's called Congress, and we pay an awful lot to keep it in session. If the people we've been sending to Congress for years and years, Democrats and Republicans alike, are collectively too timid, too lazy, or too incompetent to even try to tackle the single biggest problem we face as a nation, then it's high time for us to send different people to Congress.

People sometimes debate hypothetical questions about how far we would go to make a terrorist tell us the location of a ticking time bomb. But for Pete's sake, there's a time bomb ticking loudly right inside the Capitol and no one in the Congressional leadership seems to care! How much time do they think we have?

This is not complicated. We need to spend less. Much less. Starting right now.

NAACP Forum and the Candidates that were not there

For the record, I spoke with several of the candidates listed as "No Shows" on another blog and none of them received an official invitation. Mike Calpino, Mike Brewington and Chris Lewis never received an official invitation, phone call or email to come to the forum.

It is stated that Bob Caldwell was not invited, learned of the forum and got in contact to inform them he could not make it. In 2009 Bob had a car accident on the way to the NAACP forum when he ran for Mayor. He made it but he was a little late.

I do recall that when I ran for City Council in 2009 I received an official invitation from the NAACP for the forum. I enjoyed the forum very much and it was a very good experience.

This again shows a side of politics where creating an impression of something that is not there serves no good purpose. Neither of the candidates listed were contacted before that post was made to see if they received an invitation or had been contacted about the forum. Insinuating that certain candidates are racist or do not care about the African-American community is extremely irresponsible.

As someone who supports these candidates, I refuse to sit by and allow insinuations and lies to be spread without a response in their defense. Especially on an issue that is this sensitive and inflammatory, this deserves a response.

1 Caught, 2 sought in one Murder in the 'Bury

Brooks Lamar Seldon --- Caught.

In what has been a dangerous week in Salisbury, which is turning in to the norm, many city residents are on edge.  Two murders and one that has left a man brain dead has sent shock waves through the community.

Brooks Seldon has been arrested in connection with a murder on Charles Street.  Troy Wilson was sitting on his front porch Monday at 1:25 AM when a red Dodge Neon stopped and the passengers opened fire on Troy Wilson, who was unarmed.

As the group was attempting to get away, they struck a vehicle.  They exited the car and fled on foot.  One suspect was witnessed dropping his gun.

Frederick Coston -- Wanted

Wilson was transported to PRMC and is reported as brain dead according to the Daily Times. 

Seven hours earlier the bodies of Antonio Smith and Arlene Byrd were found at Parkside Apartments.  Police discovered their bodies during a welfare check after a concerned neighbor reported a disturbance.  Their deaths have been ruled as a homicide. 

This All-American City winner is quickly becoming a city with an out of control gang problem, bank robberies, hotel robberies,  and daily shoplifting incidents.  That is not even scratching the surface.

Keshawn White -- Wanted

The culture in this city and county has taken a downward spiral.  With millions of dollars being spent on education every year, the current approach is not working.  We are still ending up with people who do not respect other people's civil liberties.

The focus is on the Police which is the wrong approach because they are a reaction to crime.  They are constantly spread thin and run from one call to another.  Our State's Attorneys Office is overloaded with petty cases that are clogging up the resources of our justice system.

Our judicial system is one area that is failing us.  Education is the other.  These are the two areas we need to focus on for reform.  I just hope we are not to late.

The J. Millard Tawes 34th Annual Crab and Clam Bake

Mike Brewington (D) and Dr. Richard Davis (L).

Crisfield, MD: The J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam did not disappoint if you were in search of politicians. Candidates from the Democratic Party, Republican Party and Libertarian Party were present meeting voters and distributing campaign flyers.

Independent District 1 Congressional Candidate Jack Wilson had his people gathering signatures. Dr. Richard Davis signed the petition form to show his support for Wilson to be on the ballot, even though he would be an opponent. Wilson needs around 40,000 signatures according to the campaign worker.

Richard Davis(L) and Andy Harris(R).

                Read the rest at Examiner.com

The Vote Libertarian Buttons were very effective.  Governor O'Malley got the message when we shook his hand.

Grannis explains why Libertarians are different

Q&A: Why should someone who distrusts both major parties believe the Libertarian Party is different?

Last week on Mailbag Monday, we discussed where Libertarians fit along the popular but not-very-informative left-right spectrum. This week we discuss the logical follow-up that should appeal especially to the 20% or so of 8th District voters who have learned to hate both major parties: How can any party be trusted? Why should anyone believe the Libertarian Party is different?

I love this question, because it was my question for most of the last decade. The short answer is that while most parties exist to promote the electoral success of their candidates, the Libertarian Party exists to promote Liberty, win or lose. We would rather be principled than powerful. And that’s what makes it safe to trust us with power.

As we saw last week, the Libertarian combination of views looks like an ungainly hybrid to people who are used to arranging political views along a single left-to-right spectrum. By combining fiscally conservative and apparently “pro-business” views on economic matters with socially tolerant and anti-war views, Libertarians can look to some people as if they are trying to sew an elephant’s head onto a donkey’s torso.

But if we pay closer attention, we see that the part of each major party that Libertarians combine is the principled part. Libertarians oppose government interference with individual liberty for any purpose other than to protect the person or property of another individual. This is known as the “non-aggression principle,” and it is more fundamental for Libertarians than any particular plank of the party’s platform. Thus, what may look at first blush like a mixing and matching of standard R and D positions is actually a much more consistent application of a principled preference for individual liberty over government coercion.

Neither major party accepts the non-aggression principle, but that’s not the only way they differ from the Libertarian Party. In practice, there is no political principle to which either major party is committed more strongly than it is committed to winning elections. The two major political parties exist, first and foremost, to win elections. They are private clubs that exist for the purpose of electing their members, and if they believe that changing their policy positions or even their political philosophies will help them elect more members of their club, they will change positions in a heartbeat. This has actually happened many times in the history of the Republicans and the Democrats, as any good history of those parties makes clear. (For anyone who wants to check this out, I can recommend Lewis Gould's Grand Old Party.)

Libertarians are different. If you don’t believe this, go to the Libertarian Party’s website, http://www.lp.org/, and try to join the party. Before the party accepts your membership (or your money), you will be asked to take the following pledge: “I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.” Libertarians don’t all agree on exactly what the pledge means, and there is sometimes room for reasonable minds to differ about what counts as protection of person or property rather than a “political or social goal." The value of the pledge, though, is that it anchors the debate around a principle that is much more protective of individual liberty than the perpetual, poll-driven pursuit of power practiced by the major parties.

The first time I thought about joining the Libertarian Party, I stopped at the non-aggression pledge. It was so broad that, even if it sounded good in theory, I wasn’t sure it would succeed in practice. After a few more years of watching the clown show we call Congress, I came to understand that it’s the unchecked pursuit of electoral power that is the ultimate practical failure. After spending years as an “unaffiliated” voter, it now seems to me that the pledge is the only reason I could consider joining any party again. It is the pledge, and the party’s principled commitment to non-aggression, that makes the Libertarian Party more trustworthy than the others.

by Mark Grannis

Dr. Richard Davis Campaign Updates

Annapolis, MD:  In an article that was published in the The Capitol, Dr. Richard Davis is mentioned in an article about the upcoming heated race in the First Congressional District.

Crisfield, MD:  On July 21, 2010 Dr. Richard Davis, Libertarian candidate for Maryland's First Congressional District, will be in attendance at the 34th Annual J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake.   The event is held the third Wednesday every July and usually attracts politicians by the dozens in an election year.

J. Millard Tawes was the 54th Governor of Maryland and a Crisfield native.  The event was named in his honor and is held at Somers Cove Marina.

Seeing the Miraculous in Manufacturing

Date: Sun, 07/18/2010
Author: Mark Grannis
Some correspondence this morning with a friend who teaches economics reminded me of this 1946 essay/short story by Leonard Read. It's called "I, Pencil," and in it an unusually literate pencil substantiates the surprising claim that no one person on earth knows how to make a pencil, despite the fact that billions are made. The story is so simple that a kindergartener can understand it.

This is, of course, a celebration not of pencils but of human genius and of the remarkable way in which people in free economies coordinate their activities to produce things that are beyond the capacity of any single mind. The implications for centralized regulation of our natural productive capacities are clear enough.

Voting is one way to change public policy, and of course I hope everyone who reads this will vote for me and for other candidates who recognize how vital our economic liberties are to our well-being.

But if you want to improve our public policy not just for a couple of years but for decades to come, read this story to your younger kids and have your older kids read it themselves. It's short -- just 28 brief paragraphs that barely run to five typewritten pages altogether. Do yourself, your kids, and your country a favor and print it out.

www.grannisforcongress.org

MdLP upcoming events

Upcoming Events:

J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake

Wednesday, 21 July, 12:30 pm to 4 pm

Somers Cove Marina, Crisfield, Maryland

http://www.crisfieldchamber.com/clambake.htm



MDLP Central Committee Meeting

This is special meeting of the CC for the purpose of nominating 2 potential candidates for the state House of Delegates elections this November:

Josh Crandall 31st legislative district (AA County)

Ron Owens-Bey 45th legislative district (NE Baltimore City)

The meeting will be held on Wednesday, 21 July, 7 pm, at the home of Robert Glaser.

http://www.md.lp.org/events/events.php?2010#202



There will be a fundraising event for Mike Calpino, candidate for the Wicomico County Council, next Saturday:

Bivalve, MD: On Saturday July 24, 2010 from 7:00pm - 9:00pm, District 2 Wicomico County Coucnil candidate, Mike Calpino (Libertarian), will be holding an Ice Cream Social at the West Side Community Center in Bivalve, Maryland. This will be a joint fund raising event with fellow AFP/Tea Party activist and At-Large Wicomico County Council candidate, Mike Brewington (Democrat). Both candidates will be speaking to share their vision for Wicomico County and what the Liberty Movement is all about.

Contact Muir Boda for more details, at (410) 603-3347, or mwboda@me.com.


Congratulations to Dr. Richard Davis, our candidate for the US House 1st district, for being endorsed by the Conservative Congress:

http://www.examiner.com/x-53057-Wicomico-Libertarian-Party-Examiner~y2010m7d14-Dr-Richard-Davis-endorsed-by-the-Conservative-Congress?cid=channel-rss-Politics




Not a member of the MDLP? Has your membership expired? Please join; your much-needed funds go to ballot access, outreach, publishing the triennial newsletter, and supporting our candidates.

http://www.md.lp.org/join-form.pdf (cash, check, money order)

https://co.clickandpledge.com/advanced/default.aspx?wid=23698 (credit card)

If you prefer, I would be happy to mail you an order form.



Be sure to join the MDLP Yahoo Groups email lists, particularly the "announce" and discussion lists: http://www.md.lp.org/email_lists.php

Where Do Libertarians Belong?

Brink Lindsey, Jonah Goldberg & Matt Kibbe from the August-September 2010 issue

For those who cherish the ideals of free minds and free markets, 21st century politics in the United States has not been a particularly welcoming place. The big-government conservatism of George W. Bush has been followed by the bigger- government liberalism of Barack Obama. The twin crises of 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown spawned the twin leviathans of national security hyperextension and the never-ending bailout. The nation’s political class has rallied around the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and the country’s short-term financial picture only looks tenable when compared to the long-term fiscal nightmare that just about everyone agrees is coming.


So where should libertarians drop anchor and forge alliances within the famous four-sided Nolan Chart spectrum of political beliefs and groupings? In this exchange, Contributing Editor Brink Lindsey argues that it’s time, once and for all, to sever the libertarian-conservative alliance that dates back to the New Deal while remaining skeptical about the illiberal populism of Tea Party activism. In response, a conservative writer—National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg—disputes Lindsey’s portrayal of the right and contends that the only major party giving free market economics the time of day is the GOP. Meanwhile, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Lindsey and his think tank fellow travelers to climb down off that high horse and celebrate the most promising limited-government popular uprising in generations.


                                                                                  Read more at Reason

Toy Story 3 and the Tea Party Movement

How concerns about lost liberty are filtering into mainstream culture. by David Harsanyi

July 14, 2010
 
Is Toy Story 3 a parable for today's deep political discontent?
Think about it. A slick sloganeering teddy bear convinces a gaggle of beleaguered toys that he holds the key to a brighter future. The toys, longing for leadership after years of broken promises and incompetence, uncritically submit to the teddy bear's vision.

Before long, even non-Ivy Leaguers like Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky catch on. All creeds of plaything are forced to sacrifice liberty and happiness for the collective good—as imagined by a technocratic leader, his feckless vice-leader (a Ken doll), and their muscle (a giant baby doll).


First there is concern and then anger and then revolt. Even Barbie—having shown no interest in political activism for more than 50 years—unleashes the best line in the history of animated films: "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!"

Naturally, that's the lesson the screenwriters for Toy Story 3 were trying to convey to the American people. Though, admittedly, my 6-year-old had a somewhat different interpretation of Pixar's creation. Then again, she's a hopeless bleeding heart.

I, on the other hand, need this. Before children, a movie theater was a place for me to escape into flimsy narratives, hyper-violence, and juvenile bromances.

                                                                       Read More at Reason

Washington's Parasites Take Aim at Apple

by David Boaz
This article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 11, 2010

Following in the distinguished footsteps of Microsoft and Google, Apple is the latest innovative company to be targeted by politicians and regulators for being too successful. Will it be sucked into Washington's "parasite economy"?
For more than a decade, Microsoft went about its business, developing software, selling it to customers, and — happily, legally — making money. Then in 1995, after repeated assaults by the Justice Department's antitrust division, Microsoft broke down and started playing the Beltway game — defensively at first.

Washington politicians and journalists sneered at Microsoft's initial political innocence. A congressional aide said, "They don't want to play the D.C. game, that's clear, and they've gotten away with it so far. The problem is, in the long run they won't be able to."

The political establishment was essentially telling Bill Gates, "Nice little company ya got there. Shame if anything happened to it."


And Microsoft got the message: If you want to produce something in America, you'd better play the game. Contribute to politicians' campaigns, hire their friends, go hat in hand to a congressional hearing, and apologize for your success.
A decade later, it was Google. After a humble start in a Stanford dorm room, Google delivered a cheap and indispensable product and became the biggest success story of the early 21st century.

But in our modern politicized economy — which author Jonathan Rauch called the "parasite economy" — no good deed goes unpunished for long. Some policymakers threatened to create a federal Office of Search Engines to regulate Google. The George W. Bush administration wanted Google to turn over a million random Web addresses and records of all searches from a one-week period. Congress investigated how the company deals with the Chinese government's demands for censorship.


So, like Microsoft and other companies before it, Google opened a Washington office and hired well-connected lobbyists.

And now Apple. After years as a cute little niche player, Apple has suddenly started producing wildly popular products such as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. The Federal Trade Commission has started rumbling about Apple's threat to competition. Note the absurdity here: Apple creates whole new products and industries, consumer benefits that didn't exist before, and the federal government worries that it's somehow going to "limit" competition in a field it brought to the market.

Apple's competitors, including the massive Google, continue to play the game by filing complaints with the government.

Read More at CATO

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Barack Obama: The great jobs killer

As former President Ronald Reagan might have said, "Obama, there you go again."


The current occupant of the White House claims to know how to create jobs. He claims jobs have been created. But so far the score is Great Obama Depression 2.2 million lost jobs, Obama 0 -- a blowout.


Obama is as hopeless, helpless, clueless and bankrupt of good ideas as the manager of the Chicago Cubs in late September. This "community organizer" knows as much about private-sector jobs as Pamela Anderson knows about nuclear physics.


It's time to call Obama what he is: The Great Jobs Killer. With his massive spending and tax hikes -- rewarding big government and big unions, while punishing taxpayers and business owners -- Obama has killed jobs, he has killed motivation to create new jobs, he has killed the motivation to invest in new businesses, or expand old ones. With all this killing, Obama should be given the top spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List.

Meanwhile, he has kept the union workers of GM and Chrysler employed (with taxpayer money). He has made sure that most government employee union members got their annual raises for sleeping on the job (with taxpayer money). He made sure that his voters got handouts mislabeled as "tax cuts" even though they never paid taxes (with taxpayer money). And he made sure that major campaign contributors collected billions off government stimulus (with taxpayer money). 
Read The Rest........ 

Rule by Consensus

by Mike Calpino

What determines our morality? How do we determine the right course of action? How do we differentiate right from wrong? In the political sphere, how do we argue against our current rush into socialism? Too often, much too often, we quote polls or election results or statistics. If one major party or another wins an election, especially by a large majority, it becomes a license to act according to their platform or program, no matter how destructive, irrational or wrong.

The statists for years have been arguing from polls, getting the ‘feeling’ for what the people want, using the media to steer their desires, stating their case from the standpoint of emotional crisis. They have convinced the majority of the people that a government answer to a problem is the only answer that needs to be explored, the politicians simply need to argue details and emphasis.

Every year we slip further and further into the statist nightmare, we lose more and more liberty, the government gets bigger and bigger, exerts greater and greater control and takes more and more money. Few statists are honest about their goals because most people, due to the fact that they have been endowed by their Creator with a rudimentary understanding of the basic rights and liberties that make us human, would never choose slavery given an opportunity to hear a reasoned argument for and against its adoption. Nor do most want to be honest about the logical conclusions of statism, it has always led to the gulag and the death camps because it negates the value of the individual and the individual’s inherent rights. They simply want to be pragmatic, getting the benefits while trying to balance an inherently unbalanced system, hoping to get theirs before everything comes apart.

Now that there is a group in charge who are unbalancing the system in order to bring about the final resolution of the conflict between freedom and tyranny in favor of tyranny, people are getting nervous, at the least.


What do we hear from those who rail against the obviously socialist polices and actions of our government, the so-called conservatives? Two thirds of the people want health care repealed. This percentage think we shouldn’t bail out the banks. A certain percentage don’t think we should own General Motors. For those who make such argument, what happens if the majority do want health care, bank bailouts or direct government ownership of industries? Where are their arguments then? The same place as their arguments against Social Security and Medicare. They don’t make them because the majority of the people, while they may complain, don’t want them repealed or abolished. Because of that, arguments based on polls or public opinion or even elections cannot ever be winners for libertarians.

The statists have the time to make people comfortable in their slavery, accepting of their chains, and in so doing they move the argument; not over whether or not to have state control of this or that arena but only the degree of control. At best, policy based on public opinion is what we have now, with a hodgepodge of special interest groups vying for an ever larger piece of the pie. At worst, it becomes mob rule in which anything becomes possible and no right or property is respected.


The men who founded this nation did so according to principles, the key one of which was an understanding of the sacrosanct nature of individual rights. Men have a right to their lives as men. Their lives and the production of their lives does not belong to any other man and it certainly does not belong to the state. That is the fundamental argument that needs to be joined today. Not over how to reform a system that has become increasing statist. The reformers will always lose because it only requires another election to reverse any progress made in the defense of liberty. We should not be arguing about what degree of statism we should have but whether the state should be involved in any of the things we currently accept.

If we are going to argue against government run health care and be consistent, we cannot accept Medicare and Medicaid as legitimate forms of government intervention. If we try, the most consistent argument will win and the most consistent argument will either be all or nothing. The argument that allows exceptions will lose every time because once the exception is allowed, the premise of government control is accepted and the game is over. The same could be said for any government intervention in the market or our lives that is not directly related to the preservation of our fundamental rights.

It is time that those who stand for liberty stop trying to be "moderate", accepting a degree of slavery, a degree of respect for rights, a degree of redistribution, a degree of social justice, a degree of security or a degree of brute force. It is time to stand on absolute principles and learn to articulate those principles. After all, the fundamental nature of man yearns to be free, he must be fooled into becoming a slave. For too long so called "conservatives" have cooperated in the deception of the statists to reduce us all to servitude. They have failed to rise up to promote the "extreme" of "absolute" liberty. They have made arguments from fickle popular opinion, faith or even through appeals to history for history's sake and not according to the fundamental nature of man or the moral principles that make liberty and freedom so much better than tyranny. If we do not explain it and live it, freedom will continue to lose.

Mike Calpino
Candidate for Wicomico County Council

LP Monday Message: 10 reasons to end the wars now

Dear Friend of Liberty,

The long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been back in the news recently, and we just had the bizarre spectacle of the Republican National Committee Chairman saying he didn't like Obama's war in Afghanistan, while the DNC chastised him for failing to support the troops.

Here are ten reasons to end the wars now. I hope you'll take a look at some of the links.

1. American military and contractor casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2. Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian and military casualties.

3. These wars are a tremendous waste of taxpayer money in a time of extreme deficits, high unemployment and a falling stock market.

4. Invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq feeds terrorism.

5. Osama Bin Laden and his co-conspirators who attacked the World Trade Center were Saudi Arabian.

6. As Congressman Ron Paul recently said: "In Afghanistan, we are fighting the Taliban, those dangerous people with guns defending their homeland. Once they were called the Mujahideen, our old allies, along with bin Laden, in the fight to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980s."

7. Most Republicans in Congress now admit Iraq was a mistake.

8. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's comments show that even the hawkish Republican Party can't support this war with a straight face.

9. As James Madison said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." (Witness the PATRIOT Act.)

10. The U.S. military has been in Iraq over seven years, and in Afghanistan almost nine years. It's time to give peace a chance.

(Note, the LP doesn't necessarily endorse the organizations linked above. We encourage you to research these issues for yourself.)

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Lorenzo on Immigration

Candidate for U.S. Congress, District 2:
Lorenzo Gaztañaga

PEACEFUL people should be able to cross borders PEACEFULLY for PEACEFUL purposes. What's going on along the southern border between the United States and Mexico is not an open border. I am tired of hearing that it's an open border. We don't have an open border any more than Sarajevo had open streets when people had to dodge bullets from snipers on rooftops. What we have on our southern border is chaos, mayhem and horrific crimes. People's property is being invaded, people are being kidnapped and murdered; women trying to cross the border (admittedly illegally) are being raped. The march across the border becomes a death march. Who does this benefit? I guess the people whose only goal is cheap labor. It has some benefit for those who make it in, IF they make it on the death march through the desert, since they can work, etc.

Before I get to my complete answer, let's knock down one myth-that these illegals don't pay taxes. They pay the same sales taxes that we all pay. The ones that are here using forged papers, including social security numbers from dead people, etc., are also paying income tax, which of course, the IRS in its infinite goodness doesn't mind or care about, as long as it gets its cut. What to do about the 12 to 14 million illegals here? Well, you find them. A government that knows everything about everybody living here should be able to find where they're working, go to these work places where illegals have been determined to be found, and fine the employers-but not to the extent of closing the business just to make the enforcers look good. There are many reasons for hiring illegal immigrants besides cheap labor. Some of them are very good workers.

Then, confront the illegal individuals and give them an ultimatum: a one year visa to stay in the country so long as you have work, which can be extended to two years as long as you're gainfully employed. If you do not accept or meet the criterion for that first year visa, you go back. A three year extension can be applied for after the two year extension, as long as you are gainfully employed. As long as you remain gainfully employed, after ten years you can apply for an indefinite period work visa. During this time, after five years of legal residence, you can begin the process of naturalization. There will also be a $50 fine for every year that you were here illegally before you were found out.

This is how to deal with the people who are here illegally now. Much like the Arizona law, for which I don't blame Arizona (my only concern is the possible violations of the fourth amendment), it would be a psychological deterrent to coming here illegally. Now, what do we do about changing the current immigration law? Well, you can come to the border peacefully and get a work visa at the border for $500 and proof that you have a job waiting for you. You can keep this visa until such time as you're no longer gainfully employed. A $500 processing fee is very reasonable, considering that poor people are paying thousands of dollars to criminals to get them across the border-coyotes who murder them in the desert or leave them to die in hot, unventilated trucks. In the United States, employers who are interested in hiring these folks could actually initiate contact with them in their home countries. This would be an easy matter in this age of the internet and cell phones and an entrepreneurial spirit that wants to rise above a calamitous economy. Job banks could easily be created in the countries of origin to match potential employers with potential employees. This should be managed as a private enterprise, not as a government service. The role of government is to ensure that people are not being abused or defrauded. Since they would be here legally, they would be able to report cases of abuse and fraud to the appropriate authorities. Any one of these immigrants will be treated as citizens or legal residents. If convicted of a crime, they will serve out their sentence here. If they have no job waiting for them after serving their time, they will be deported.

No fixed immigration policy can be complete without understanding the need for assimilation, and I know a thing or two about that personally. I am from Cuba. I'm very proud of my ancestry. I speak, read and write Spanish, my first tongue, fluently. My favorite dish is still Cuban black beans with white rice and pork chops. None of that has stopped me from loving my adoptive country, or from learning its language. Of course, I am fortunate, because when I came here, school systems were not trying to balkanize and separate Latin American immigrants and refugees by teaching them courses in Spanish that should have been taught in English, delaying their assimilation. The number of politicians back then who were trying to keep these immigrants as dependents of the government by keeping them apart and separate was not as large as it is today. This needs to change.

Lastly, concerning the virtual war that goes on along the southern border of the United States: we cannot separate the effects of the so-called War on Drugs from the mayhem along the border. To try to do so would be like separating the "H2" from the "O" and still thinking you have water. There's more, of course. I welcome questions and comments on this and all the other issues I've laid out here. Remember:

PEACEFUL PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CROSS BORDERS PEACEFULLY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES.

Libertarians: The Secret Strength of the Immigration Reform Movement

Campus Progress, a "national organization that works with and for young people to promote progressive solutions to key political and social challenges," has published an online report about libertarian feelings about immigration.

...More and more, immigration is becoming a major issue among libertarians, who believe in smaller government and more personal freedom. Traditionally, libertarians are more open to immigration than both conservatives and liberals, explains Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian research center the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. “Most libertarians are sympathetic toward immigration. They see human migration as a personal freedom. That’s in contrast to conservatives and Republicans."

...A majority of libertarians take issue with the fact that everyone suffers with certain kinds of immigration laws, like Arizona’s SB 1070 or housing regulations that target undocumented immigrants like Farmers Branch, Texas’ Ordinance No. 2592 [PDF]. Such laws can create a your-papers-please policy which place unnecessary burdens on residents and citizens.

"SB 1070 has a lot of un-libertarian characteristics," says Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee. "It’s too much intrusion on privacy. We’re taking away too many rights. It penalizes everyone when only a few people are breaking some law."

Allan Webster to run for Somerset County Sheriff

Official Press Release

After much thought and encouragement from law enforcement officials, business owners and community residents, I am officially announcing that I will be seeking the office of Sheriff for Somerset County. I will be filing the appropriate documents with the Election Board this week.

My forty years of public service and professional law enforcement experience will benefit the residents of Somerset County and assist me in organizing the Sheriff’s Department to become more efficient and professional. I am looking forward to meeting business owners and residents throughout the county over the next several months to discuss issues and share my goals for the next four years. Some of my goals include:

1. Obtaining grant funding to equip all of the Department’s vehicles with lap-top computers and in-car video systems
2. Improve the efficiency of the department to reduce the costs to taxpayers of Somerset County
3. Aggressive enforcement of drug crimes and seizure of drug dealer’s assets
4. Stabilize the Department by seeking competitive pay and
benefits for Sheriff’s Deputies

Growing up, I have fond memories of Somerset County, spending many summers with my aunt and uncle, Margaret and Linwood Mariner on their chicken farm in Rehobeth, Maryland. My father, Carpenter Webster was born on Deal Island and my grandfather Howard Webster’s home still stands on Osburn Webster Road on Deal Island. I live in Marion Station with my wife, Carol Ann of Crisfield, Maryland.

Catching up on Lower Shore Politics

Check out my latest article on Examiner.com concerning Liberty Movement candidates on the Lower Shor.