Update on social security

It appears that the Bush Administration may throw in the towel on "personal accounts" as a means to reform social security. While personal accounts had some appeal, the plan seemed far too grandiose, IMO. It relied on complex formulas and an understanding of financial markets that escapes most.

The Journal editorial linked outlines the notion of "progressive indexing," which may solve the looming fiscal crunch in social security. Nothing there troubles me. It does make social security more like a welfare program, yes, but then, it always has been a welfare program.

But the Bushies should not throw in the towel on shifting to private solutions over public ones. There's always been a more direct solution that's been overlooked. Expand IRAs. Take off the restrictions on those who have 401Ks. Make them exemptions, not just deductions. And raise the caps. If handled properly, IRAs make the "need" for social security less compelling for most.

-Robert Capozzi

Bias, and Bright Lines

Adam Baney keeps coming back! Great.

Selected reactions:

Regardless of how you feel about the on-going war in Iraq, it does serve as a warning to those who remain defiant, despite international condemnation. I refuse to believe that Gaddafi just gave up his weapons ambitions.

I might grant the point on Gaddafi. But, with billions of US tax dollars and the lives of Americans, Iraqis and others lost, I don't buy that the Iraq War was an "investment" in imposing the US's pre-eminence on the world. Is there REALLY any nation that fosters the desire to overwhelm the US, landing in Baltimore and taking our fair land? No. The US is simply not threatened in that way.

There is no question that the U.S. should do everything in it's power to avoid world conflict...but, at the same time, not run from responsibility.

And here's the rub: What IS the US's responsibility? What is the basis for intervening in places like Korea, Vietnam and Iraq when there was no clear and present danger? You maintain there's this "responsibity," yet you do not justify it. Is it in the US Constitution? Even in legislation? No. It's an unspoken, vague statement by some that the US has some "responsibility" to maintain the peace, even despite the fact that our most recent wars have done the opposite.

What piece of evidence leads you to believe that either Stalin or Hitler would have stopped at the opposing country. Our involvement in WW2 effectively stopped a communist superpower from forming. That superpower would have killed millions more than any number complied by Stalin or Mao.

Excuse me! Siding with Stalin lead to the Soviet bloc and the Maoist takeover of China.

The balance must be taken into consideration. We will not survive as a country if we do not defend our allies, and deter those who wish to harm us. The counterpoint being...we must choose our battles wisely.

Yes, balance is the key. I simply don't agree that the US would not survive without military alliances. Look at landlocked Switzerland. Europe has experienced centuries of war, yet the non-aligned Swiss remain friend to all, foe to none. My view is the US has, in fact, NOT chosen its battles wisely over the past 50 years. That leads me to a strong bias against foreign wars. A bright line? No.

-Robert Capozzi

Left-Libertarians and workers of the world unite!

Free liberals and others wishing to build a left-libertarian movement will be interested in Roderick Long's criticisms of libertarians for dismissing the concerns of the working class instead of working to build a movement that is pro-liberty, pro-union, anti-state, and pro-worker. I am not sure I agree with everything but, like most things Roderick writes, it is well written and reasoned and provides ample food for thought. Roderick ends with a challenge to both leftists and libertarians that free liberals may want to take up:

"First: eliminate state intervention, which predictably works to benefit the politically-connected, not the poor. As I like to say, libertarianism is the proletarian revolution. Without all the taxes, fees, licenses, and regulations that disproportionately burden the poor, it would be much easier for them to start their own businesses rather than working for others. As for those who do still work for others, in the dynamically expanding economy that a rollback of state violence would bring, employers would have to compete much more vigorously for workers, thus making it much harder for employers to treat workers like crap. Economic growth would also make much higher wages possible, while competition would make those higher wages necessary. There would be other benefits as well; for example, Ehrenreich complains about the transportation costs borne by the working poor as a result of suburbanisation and economic segregation, but she never wonders whether zoning laws, highway subsidies, and other such government policies have anything to do with those problems.

Second: build worker solidarity. On the one hand, this means formal organisation, including unionisation – but I’m not talking about the prevailing model of “business unions,” conspiring to exclude lower-wage workers and jockeying for partnership with the corporate/government elite, but real unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage. (See Paul Buhle’s Taking Care of Business for a history of how pseudo-unions crowded out real ones, with government help.) On the other hand, it means helping to build a broader culture of workers standing up for one another and refusing to submit to humiliating treatment.

These two solutions are of course complementary; an expanded economy, greater competition among employers, and fewer legal restrictions on workers makes building solidarity easier, while at the same time increased solidarity can and should be part of a political movement fighting the state.

That’s the left-libertarian movement I’d like to see. And people keep telling me it doesn’t exist. Good lord! I know it doesn’t exist; why else would I be urging that it be brought into existence?

Of course I’m also told that it can’t exist. Libertarians tell me it won’t work because leftists don’t care enough about liberty; leftists tell me it won’t work because libertarians don’t care enough about the poor and oppressed. In short, each side insists that it’s the other side that won’t play along.

Now the answer to this is that some will (and have) and some won’t – but that we should do what we can to increase the number who will. So here’s a general challenge.

If you’re a libertarian who thinks leftists don’t care about liberty, why not become a leftist who cares about liberty? That way there’ll be one more. Or if you’re a leftist who thinks libertarians don’t care about the poor and oppressed, why don’t you become a libertarian who cares about the poor and oppressed? Once again, that way there’ll be one more. And in both cases there’ll also be one fewer libertarian of the kind that alienates leftists by dismissing their concerns, and likewise one fewer leftist of the kind that alienates libertarians by dismissing their concerns."

Sleight of Hand?

Adam Baney continues our conversation on war and peace. He uses arguments we've heard before, so let's address the counters:

You write as if this country is somehow autonomous, and not affected by world events. It's not that we need to act as the world's police force, but being visible on the world's stage can play an overwhelming role in deterrence.

No, the US is most certainly NOT "autonomous." It's a highly interdependent world, including for the US. War interrupts the free flow of trade, people and ideas. Contributing to the war footing, I suggest, makes our interdependence and global prosperity worse, not better. Being "visible" is, IMO, a squishy concept. Coca Cola and McDonald's hold high the US banner far better than troops in a place like Germany, which is a massive drain on the US taxpayer and I believe history shows empire-like efforts increase the likelihood of war rather than decreasing it.

Had we stopped Hitler in a pre-emptive strike, history may have read that invading Germany was wrong.

Baney points out that there are no crystal balls. My goodness, do I ever agree. Had the US not turned back the ships carrying Jews deported by Hitler from Germany, perhaps the Holocaust could have been averted. Had the US not provoked the Japanese with oil embargos, perhaps war with Japan could have been averted. Had the US not joined in the European theater of WWII, perhaps Stalin and Hitler would have exhausted themselves. Had that happened, perhaps the millions slaughtered by Stalin and Mao could have been averted, a far more murderous Holocausts than Hitler's. Does Baney seriously suggest that the US should have intervened in a border squabble over Czechoslavakia? On what basis? The question has to come down to more fundamental principles, as I see it. Nation's -- even when well meaning -- should avoid the temptation to butt into other nations's business. Perhaps that should be somewhat elastic, but more often than not, intervention leads to unintended consequences that are far worse to human life and happiness.

If anything, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both occurred while we sat back and kept our nose out of world affairs.

Sorry, false on both counts. The US embargoed oil to Japan. And the US has a long history of interceding in the affairs of the Middle East. 9/11 is a straw man, in this case, anyway. No nation was involved. It was -- conspiracy theories aside -- a small network of radicals, bent on disrupting our way of life. How can that have possibly been anticipated or stopped?

Whether you like it or not the world's problem's are also our own, and the "stick to our own business" idea is a garbage approach, riddled with flaws.

The definition of insanity is repeating something and expecting different results. Repeating Vietnam is sheer lunacy. That is what does not work, not the Iraq War, IMO. And, increasingly, the voters' opinion.

-Robert Capozzi

GOPfellas

Richard Wilkins at More Liberty finds similarities between the result of the election and the fate of the main characters in Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas.

Carbon Tax Quibble

Kevin Rollins rightly praises Tyler Cowen's call for the carbon tax. However, while Cowen's economics might be sound, his call for the "Phase out all forms of capital income taxation" seems to be less attractive politics than Carl Milsted's call to phase out social security taxes.

Step back and look at the politics. Carbon taxes will raise the cost of things like gas, which seems wise, given that burning fossil fuels is injurious to public health. However, carbon taxes will fall disproportionately on the less well to do. So, while Cowen's idea indirectly helps those who are most burdened by high taxes, Milsted's helps those who need the relief the most.

Cowen's play like a "soak the poor, help the rich" idea. Milsted's: "protect the environment, help the poor, or at least keep them even."

The optics of the Milsted plan plays better, IMO.

-Robert Capozzi

Tyler Cowen Calls for Carbon Tax

In a recent article in U.S. News & World Report, George Mason University economics professor Tyler Cowen advocates the implementation of a carbon tax:

" Phase out all forms of capital income taxation, including the corporate income tax, and replace them with a carbon tax, including a gasoline tax. "Savings and investment boost economic growth, but when it comes to energy, global warming threatens as a major problem and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil damages our foreign policy."

Cowen is known as somewhat of a contrarian in the overwhelming libertarian econ department at Mason where even I got called a "socialist" by radical free-marketeers from time to time. I'm glad to see another sharp libertarian offering up such free liberal proposals.

Readers of this site will recall Carl Milsted's similar proposals on instituting a carbon tax.

~KDR

Peace, War, and American Obligations

Adam Baney adds to our conversation about peace, war, and American obligations in the 21st century. His comment suggests:

“Regardless of who is in power, it is essential that we protect those in need of protection, and thwart those who wish to disrupt peace. I believe we all agree on that.”

This view may sound attractive to some, but let’s step back and examine it. It’s my view that the premise of this statement, which echoes Bush’s second inaugural speech, is that the US has an obligation to bring liberty and peace to the world. That, I submit, is one tall order. The world is now, has always been, and, at least for the foreseeable future, will likely be in a state of non-peace. Some nation is always fighting somewhere.

That, of course, is tragic. Using the Baney/Bush/neocon standard, however, signs the US up for policing the world in perpetuity. Do we REALLY want to sign up for this duty? Is there REALLY an obligation to be the world’s policeman?

Most Free Liberals would answer these questions with a resounding “no.” So, with all due respect, Mr. Baney, no, we don’t all agree.

Is this to say that the US should not thwart other nations (or terrorist organizations) that wish to do harm to Americans? Here I say, well, of course.

Where it gets murkier is when US allies are attacked. At this point, the US has numerous alliances, despite George Washington’s sage counsel against “entangling alliances.” The US Constitution allows for treaties, so for the US to renounce all its treaties in this context seems inappropriate. There is, however, a strong case for exiting these treaties when practicable.

War does not bring peace. They are antonyms, as Orwell coyly taught us in 1984. There’s a strong empirical case that wars set up the conditions for more wars in the future. Not always, of course.

War is a nasty, dirty, killing business; in the panic of the moment, wars are fought for reasons that, at the time, seem sound, but are often not so. The latest illustration of this is WMD in Iraq…none have been found, although perhaps they are sitting in a bunker in Syria at the moment…who knows? When emotions run high, the impulse to fight wars heightens. Speculation and demonization of the “enemy” rears its ugly head. Cooler heads often do NOT prevail, and are in fact dismissed as “unpatriotic.”

That’s the pattern, IMO.

Does this mean that US troops and munitions should never be dispatched off shore? In theory, a case could be made for answering that question affirmatively or negatively. It seems unlikely that the vast preponderance of Americans would not support efforts to end a genocide, for example. What is clear, however, is that “genocides” are often not clear-cut situations, with both sides performing acts of atrocity and aggression. So, to intervene is to attempt to take the side of the “lesser evil.” Which is the lesser evil is itself a question that is often unclear. The bull in a china shop often does damage, even when the bull intended to do no harm.

So, while it may sound callous to some, I believe it is good practice to be strongly biased against foreign wars, particularly those where the US is not presented with a clear and present danger. To only fight wars when Congress deliberates and votes affirmatively for a declaration of war seems to be the appropriate path. To fully air all sides, as a check to ensure that the war is not being fought under false pretenses and, instead, soberly, for the right reasons.

-Robert Capozzi

Pelosi's "Peace"

New House Speaker is quoted as saying this:

"As we say in church, let there be peace on Earth," Pelosi said. "And let it begin with us; let the healing begin."

Excellent idea. Peace starts within. Yet this is the nub of my take on why the Ds and "progressives" are utterly confused. They pride themselves on being peacemakers, but they turn around and use the levers of government to impose their views on the rest of us. How is raising the minimum wage by force "peace"? Or furthering government in health insurance? Or even beefing up student loans? Are these not the use of more force by the Feds, not less?

How on Earth do they square that circle?

Peace, out.

-Robert Capozzi

More on Power Addiction

"abaney" comments on my previous blog, Recurring Mistake of "Perpetual War." A few clarficiations seem in order.

The alcoholic/power addict concept is a metaphorical analogy. Practicing alcoholics are often "in denial," not believing they have a problem. Ditto for politicians. They don't consciously believe their motive is powermongering, but that's the EFFECT of their behavior. Public choice economists explain this phenomenon well, although they use different terminology.

This blog -- and my position -- is transpartisan. We praise Rs when we agree, and Ds, too. Similarly, we criticize both with equanimity when we disagree. What is reasonably clear by the facts is that the Rs lost the Congress, and the Iraq War seemed to be reason #1. Looking at the same fact set that abaney does, I simply do not buy that Sadaam was a threat on the order of Hitler. I DO accept that he was a threat on some level. Similarly, I DO accept that al Qaeda IS a threat, too. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and many members of Congress received the American people's collective opinion earlier this month about the war, which seems more in line with my view: That it's a mistake, a pretty BIG mistake.

I am not suggesting, as abaney implies, that the US should not react to the times. Of course we should. I support the Afghan campaign, more or less. I support counterterrorism measures. I support increased intelligence on the Al Qaeda Network. I did not support the Iraq War, Vietnam, or Korea, however. IMO, they were all counter-productive overreactions.

-Robert Capozzi

Recurring Mistake of "Perpetual War"

Norm Singleton makes a great point: That the Rs and Ds seem to reflexively and impulsively fight wars, what he calls the "perpetual war."

Yes, I hear that. The nation's leaders don't learn the lesson of Korea, so they pause and but then come back to Vietnam. Iraq I was waged, but they've not ventilated their impulse to dominate, so back again the US goes to Iraq for a second time.

But it ain't just the pols. The public buys the war at first, then after the body bags start to mount, they pressure the pols to bring the boys (and now girls) home.

A shrink might call this classic addictive and enabling behavior, and here I'd agree. Politicians are "addicted" to power, and they seem to want to show it off in tangible ways, hence the propensity to wage war. The "public" enable this, and somehow or other take a certain glee in proving the demon enemy "wrong," and we innocent Americans "right."

It all spins out of control, the pols getting increasingly drunk with their power. Benders can be quite ugly things. The public sees that, and recoils in disgust. Like the alcoholic and their families, the public starts to remember all the misrepresentations and lies the drunken pols told them. The pols dry out...for a while.

That's where we are in this sick cycle. The Ds taking Congress represents the public choosing a dryer period...for now. Unless some major event comes to the fore, my sense is the perpetual war is in a "truce" phase.

Jefferson saw this. It's IMO the real meaning of the "eternal vigilance" that liberty lovers must maintain. Power addicts never seem to get that power is the problem, not the solution. They need to be called on it, day by day, year by year, generation by generation.

That's the deal.

-Robert Capozzi

Re: Bad idea dead

Bob, I did not see your post on the Democrats renouncing Rangel's support for the draft before I posted my comments on Milton Friedman's leading role in ending the draft. While I am pleased to see Rangel shot down I am skeptical that we have seen the last of this issue given the support for the perpetual war among the leaders of both parties.

Milton Friedman's greatest accomplishment

Paul of all of his contributions to liberty, Milton Friedman considered his instrumental role in ending the draft his greatest accomplishment. Starting in the sixties, Friedman lead the effort to eliminate the draft, which he considered a form of slavery. Friedman severed on the President's Commission on the Voluntary Army and was a major force in convincing President Nixon to end conscription-- the only pro-liberty thing Nixon did in office!

Unfortunately,if Charlie Rangel gets his way, we may need to refight this battle. Libertarians looking for ammunition to make the economic and mortal case against conscription could do worse than starting with the works of Milton Friedman:

"When a young man is forced to serve at $45 a week, including the cost of his keep, of his uniforms, and his dependency allowances, and there are many civilian opportunities available to him at something like $100 a week, he is paying $55 a week in an implicit tax. … And if you were to add to those taxes in kind, the costs imposed on universities and colleges; of seating, housing, and entertaining young men who would otherwise be doing productive work; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on industry by the fact that they can only offer young men who are in danger of being drafted stopgap jobs, and cannot effectively invest money in training them; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on individuals of a financial kind by their marrying earlier or having children at an earlier stage, and so on; if you were to add all these up, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the cost of a volunteer force, correctly calculated, would be very much smaller than the amount we are now spending in manning our Armed Forces."
from "Why Not a Volunteer Army?"

"In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, 'If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries."
from Milton and Rose Friedman's 1998 autobiography "Two Lucky People"

Bad Idea Dead...for Now

The Ds have an interesting style. So far, their intra-party disputes are waged in public, which I find a bit refreshing.

Charles Rangel -- longtime proponent of the draft for socioeconomic reasons -- has been rebuffed. D leadership says a draft is inappropriate now.

Agreed. I of course say it's always inappropriate, for a draft creates incentives to wage wars of choice. And a draft -- no matter how you cut it -- is involuntary servitude.

-Robert Capozzi

Vietnam, Iraq and Patience

Bridging on Paul Gessing's blog, it does appear that Bush is only recognizing part of the lesson of Vietnam, Iraq, and perhaps even life generally. Bush seems to think that he -- and the American people -- need to be patient about Iraq.

As one who believes that "patience is a virtue," I hear that. One -- and a nation -- needs to recognize that Rome wasn't built in a day. But is that what the US is doing in Iraq, building something? If so, what is the US "building"? What is the mission, and what is the bigger picture?

The big picture, IMO, is that both Vietnam and Iraq were over-reactions by the US government. In Vietnam, it was the domino theory, that the US needed to fight around the world to stop the spread of Communism. In Iraq, it seems to have been about stopping the spread of "Islamo-fascism," and to stop Saddam from using WMD against the US and its allies.

Problem was, Communism was doomed from the outset. And there were schisms amongst the Communist nations back then, with the USSR and China already taking different paths. Dictators tend to act this way...recall that Hitler and Stalin were once allies.

Similarly, the Muslim nations are not one big conspiracy. Shiites and Sunnis have vastly different worldviews, though both are Islamic. Some of those nations are ruled by people who have vague designs on world domination, but most don't. Some of the people in those nations buy into the expansionist ideology, but most don't. Some are supporters of terrorists, but most don't. Sometimes, the "Arab street" likes it when a terrorist act is perpetrated, but often this is all about their frustration with being dominated by "the West," which has had a tendency to throw its weight around in the region. There, can we hardly blame them?

Bush is sticking to his guns that the Iraq War was a just cause. Without WMD, his case has been fatally weakened. Neocon ideologues have complex and paranoid visions about why the US needs to be in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran. I find them mistaken, deeply so.

Patience IS a virtue, true. But patience about a just cause. This ain't one. Rather than continue the face-saving charade, can't cooler heads prevail? Admit to mistakes, somewhat understandable mistakes. Count the successes. Saddam is out, was a twisted, bad guy, and he DID have WMD, and I'm persuaded wanted to re-arm with them. And get out of Iraq. Sure, it should be done with some patience and grace. Fair-minded people will be open to that.

-Robert Capozzi

The Lessons of Vietnam?

So Bush was in Vietnam the other day and, when asked by a reporter if the experience in Vietnam offered lessons for Iraq, Bush said, "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take awhile."

Now, I wasn't alive during Vietnam, but I've studied the history books pretty well, and I don't think that the Vietnam War was ever going to be successful, no matter how long we stayed. After all, large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965 and the last left the country in 1973. That was after the French and then American "advisors" had been in the country since the end of WWII. Hardly a case of "inadequate patience" in my opinion considering that American involvement in WWII itself lasted less than 4 years.

No, rather than paying attention to our dear leader, perhaps the American people should have learned from Vietnam and Iraq that it is unwise to trust politicians when it comes to matters of war and peace and that warmongering is a bi-partisan affliction.

On the Passing of Milton Friedman

In case you haven't already heard the news, Miltion Friedman, one of the greatest freedom-fighters the world has ever known, died yesterday at the ripe old age of 94. Friedman is best known as a Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist, but he was truly a liberty-loving individual on all levels. He and his wife worked on issues as diverse as school choice to drug policy reform. He also strongly opposed the Iraq War . Dr. Friedman will be sorely missed by all.

Abolish the penny?

OK, as a fan of gridlock, I'm looking forward to two pretty good years. Maybe the US will get out of Iraq. It seems less likely that a pre-emptive strike will be made on Iran. W will probably resist D calls for new taxes, though he might give a little bit. New programs seem unlikely. Maybe they raise the minimum wage, which is bad for the poor, as I see it, but arguing this one just seems futile, given the lack of economics knowledge in the general population. I expect tweaks to the health insurance regime, but no real movement in either direction (statism or liberty). No change to Sarbox seems in the cards.

Still, I can think of something affirmative that the Feds should do: Abolish the penny. What a freaking waste of resources! Giving them is only slightly more frustating than getting them. The penny's value has been inflated away to the point that rounding everything to a nickel seems highly common sensical and transpartisan.

Next: The nickel!

-Robert Capozzi

The Purity of Being Broke?

Paul Jacob makes a good point in his essay on "idea laundering." Why should he have to apologize because the people who like what he says also are the ones who support him? Those who accuse think tanks and writers of "selling out" because they receive money from a person or organization which ostensibly benefits from the "ideas" of those think tanks or writers are getting the relationship backwards as well as having a fantastical view of how the public policy sector operates.

Wrong Premise 1: Big donors give money to people whom they despise in hopes of "corrupting" the recipient of their largesse.

Why spend money on someone who hates you when you could instead give it someone who is already on your side? For example, how much money would you have to give a Christian to endorse atheism? An environmentalist to embrace oil spills? A libertarian to advocate communism? This seems unlikely and unproductive.

ASIDE: I suppose if you believe that people are perfectly malleable and are willing to give up their deepest values for a little extra spending money, then this is possible, but it seems that people actually have more worth than that! Who would like to live in a society peopled by such unprincipled automatons? Why bother saving it if that is the case?

In contrast, it should not surprise us that those who like the ideas of a writer are willing to support that person financially. If companies are corrupt for supporting pro-capitalist thinkers who defend the company's right to make a profit, then are not teachers' unions corrupt for asking the government to raise their pay? Shouldn't environmentalists stop sending their money to environmental groups for fear that the groups will be "corrupted" by their pro-environment views?

Rather than hating this form of "corruption" is it possible that these critics are simply in fantasy land when it comes to the economics of non-profits?

Wrong Premise 2: Writers and think tanks should somehow operate on no funds at all.

Despite the miraculous continued existence of this publication despite a lack of attention from its editor (me), a persistent lack of funds, and a slow-moving 501(c3) approval process, it should not be assumed that a non-profit can run on bread and water alone. In the case of The Free Liberal, it also requires a sort of bread/water hybrid known as "beer." In seriousness, we survive on the generosity of our staff to donate their time and energy to make it happen, but we could do more if we had some corrupt funding!

To have people who are ready and willing to work full-time on any cause, they need to be independently wealthy, or they must get funding from somewhere. The funding can come in small amounts (from a grassroots network) or in large batches from corporations and wealthy individuals. Other organizations get grants from the government or may be employees of the state (educators, for instance). How many sucessful organizations can you name which don't get funding from somewhere?

If being paid by others who support your work, then practically everyone in the economy is corrupt.

Even the butcher, baker, and candlestick makers are corrupt because they get money from people who want to buy meat, bread, and wax lighting devices!

There is no purity in being broke. There is nothing wrong with being supported by people who appreciate you. Our society depends on the principle that those who represent your values should earn your support.

So, if you like this, please send a donation to The Center for Liberty and Community, PO BOX 325, Woodbridge, VA 22194.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Jon Stewart and the 2006 Election

Did Jon Stewart push the Democrats to election victory? At least one conservative thinks so and he even called him the "Rush Limbaugh of 2006. If this is indeed the case, which I'm not sure it is -- after all, while Stewart clearly favors Democrats, he is not nearly as partisan as Rush Limbaugh -- is this a good thing? Well, at least Jon Stewart fans are a bit better informed than, say, O'Reilly's audience. We'll see if this makes any difference moving forward in Congress.

Crying in their beer

Based on my random listening to conservative radio pundits, their groupthink position seems to be:

- We deserved to lose, in some ways. But we won on various initiatives, so not all hope is lost.
- Iraq IS going badly, but the US must not "cut and run," and W won't.
- We didn't manipulate fears about immigration enough, despite the fact that the most hardcore "fence" advocates were handed their heads in the elections.
- And, oh yes, our guys in Congress didn't practice spending restraint.

OK, at least the conservatives are not in full blown denial. But they are STILL in denial on many, many things. To be fair, some conservatives were opposed to the Iraq War. Still, it IS a "conservative" -- really neocon -- war. But it IS a disaster, not just not going well. The honest conservative should say something like: "The war was the wrong war, at the wrong time, waged poorly. Yes, let's take some solace in the fact that Saddam is out, but let's not feel that the geopolitics of the situation REQUIRES the US to stay there. They don't. This whole thing is blowing back in the US's face because we were, on balance, wrong. Let's maintain eternal vigilance against terrorists, but let's STOP making more of them."

The fix is in, BTW. While I'm not a big fan, James Baker is as we speak ginning up the "peace with honor" solution to this quagmire.

On spending, the conservatives need to go to a fiscal AA meeting. They were drunk with power, and became the problem, not the solution. Blind ambition got in the way of virtue, big time.

And, yes, their anti-immigration stance is, frankly, unAmerican. They can TRY to immunize themselves by emphasizing "illegal" immigration, but can't everyone see through that? A more sober approach to the real problem of illegal immigration is called for, not bombastic, encoded, anti-wetback screeds.

Who knows? Maybe if conservatives start looking at their fear and hate, they will wake up to the more peace-loving approach that libertarians and free liberals have been suggesting all along. I'm even cautiously optimistic that liberals will do the same, when they look clear-eyed at how government "solutions" are not peaceful, and only make matters worse.

The glass is both half full and half empty.

-Robert Capozzi

Hint for Democrats: Protect Whistleblowers

Following up on yesterday's blog about Democrats losing focus on why they were elected, today I offer a reminder of the sort of things we Free Liberals would like to see from the new Congress.

Sibel Edmonds continues her fight to get protection for national security whistleblowers. Democrats could be strong on national security by being bold in protecting those who work in the field. Read the Liberty Coalition petition, here.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Will Triumphant Democrats Push Liberalism or Socialism?

Watching the Daily Show tonight, I was disheartened to see Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean gleefully proclaim that Democrats would push for a raise in the minimum wage and seek out universal health care. He made no mention of Iraq, the invasions of our civil liberties, the reckless spending or any of the major issues which drove the Democrats to victory. I'm in agreement with Bob Capozzi about my feelings towards the outcome of the election. As he says, "The Ds are certainly not our salvation. Their laundry list makes me cringe more than not."

The Dems are reverting to their old ways. They've obviously read victory as endorsement of all their policies rather than as a critique of Bush. And if they mistakenly pursue worn-out socialism they may miss the chance to make the changes they were hired to make. As The Colbert Report jokingly pointed out tonight, they can't really do anything, they can't even get John Kerry to shut his mouth.

Further, while it is good news that the Democrats will provide a check against the White House, I fear that their new found power will cause them to be less open to working with the libertarian community now that they no longer need the votes to get elected.

We have seen flirtation between the left and true liberalism. Let us hope it is not just a passing fancy that ended on November 7th.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Ds In, Rummy Out, Bush (Somewhat) Humbled

Fascinating chatter about this election. The Donkeys have convincingly taken the House and probably the Senate. Rummy fell on his sword, in this case, by demerits, as W finds that the Iraq policy isn't working too well. Of course, it's not working at all, but then we are seeing once again that you reap what you sow.

The Ds are certainly not our salvation. Their laundry list makes me cringe more than not. Still, the prospect of Speaker Pelosi & Co. not being a rubber stamp as Hastert & Co were is about as good as it's going to get.

Perhaps most interestingly for me is that the markets are rallying today. The smart money knows that divided government is good for the economy and markets. Gridlock and stalling is given far too short shrift. Equilibrium and drift are commendable states, for the government does harm us more than it helps. Meanwhile, the good people of our nation can now proceed with their daily lives with fewer interruptions.

-Robert Capozzi

Election Results, and Virginia's Revisionist "Choice"

Early morning the day after the elections, and it appears the Ds have taken the House, and possibly the Senate. Many freedomistas and Free Liberals take some joy in this. At least the Bush Administration won't have a rent-seeking amen chorus in the Capitol, rubber stamping efforts to further erode the Constitution. And, now the drunken sailors will have a check on how they spend our tax dollars.

Of course, Dr. Ron Paul, a featured columnist here on The Free Liberal, was re-elected. That the Conscience of the House was returned to Washington is reason for celebration.

One race that remains unresolved is the Allen/Webb race for the Senate seat from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Much was made of Allen's (at minimum) impolitic "mukaka" comment. But Webb is noted for his rather odd take on things, including women in the military. But what is perhaps of more concern is Webb's embracing of the old, and sometimes unspoken, revisionist take on the Civil War.

Webb wrote in his book Born Fighting: A History of the Scots-Irish in America that the Civil War was "a war of independence in the same sense as the Revolutionary War," believing that many Confederate soldiers believed their cause was righteous.

Maybe the soldiers did believe that. A lot of Americans believe(d) that the Iraq War was a war against Al Qaeda, too. But is that the truth?

Three of the Confederate states singled out that they were "slave" states in their very documents to secede from the Union. (Search here for the word "slave.") Or read the transcripts from the ex parte "secession conventions" held during that time, and I'm confident you'll see cite after cite of maintaining slavery as a primary motive for secession.

Allen/Webb reminds me that the old adage "the more things change, the more they remain the same" is quite true.

-Robert Capozzi

Trans-Texas Corridor and Sovreignty

I love Ron Paul, and while I understand that a great many Texans have concerns about the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor, I believe Dr. Paul's concerns over the sovreignty implications of this particular project are overblown.

Yes, there will be the use of eminent domain to construct this project, but this particular taking would be for public use and as Dr. Paul is well-aware, falls within the Constitution. Whether it is a desirable project or not is to be determined, but the idea that by constructing a road that is designed to transport goods from the Mexican border to other locations within the United States we are abdicating our sovreignty is confusing to me.

Trade -- even if NAFTA is more of a managed trade deal than real free trade -- is a good thing and so is the investment of private dollars (as opposed to tax dollars) in infrastructure projects. I'm not even sure why Congress has a role to play in prohibiting a road project involving Texas and some private investors.

There is still a long way to go before the Trans-Texas-Corridor comes to fruition, but I think Dr. Paul is jumping the gun in stridently opposing the road at this point.

Remember, Remember

Stewart Rhodes at More Liberty follows up his first poem with John Yoo: Neocon Treason and Plot an ode to the chief theoretician of the doctrine that the President's power as "commander-and-chief" extend to allowing him to indefinitely detain and torture anyone he declares an "enemy combatant."

Stewart also offers an ode to Election Day:

Remember, remember, this 7th of November,
Why of our freedom they cared not;
In this political season, we know the reason
Their souls by power were bought

A Desire Named Streetcar

City Council in my recently-adopted home of Albuquerque, New Mexico, will be voting soon on a project called a "modern streetcar." This costly government project, despite costing upwards of $200 million just for construction, will more likely hurt overall transit ridership than help it, yet the Mayor seems hellbent on building this thing.

Considering that it costs only $35 million to run Albuquerque's entire bus system, it seems foolish to build a streetcar that costs $28 million a mile. Light rail and so-called "modern streetcars" would never make it were it not for government subsidies and the misguided support of many environmentalists. Instead of wasting money on rail, though, the environmental community should focus on something called bus rapid transit, which is much cheaper and quicker than rail.

Great Caesar's Ghost

Bridging on Norm Singleton's blog Still Rendering unto Caesar, compassionate conservatives seem to forget their lessons. David Kuo, the former deputy in the Bush White House's faith-based initiative program, seems to want to redirect largesse from taxpayers to private organizations. This set-up seems to keep the Feds in control of how and where charitable activities are spent.

This, IMO, misses the point of compassion. Compassion is something from the heart, a sense that we can and should -- if we can -- help those who cannot help themselves. Better yet, we help those who don't know how to fish to fish, rather than just handing out fish or daily bread or whatever.

Here I think Free Liberals should offer a third way: tax relief.

In broad strokes, how might that work?

- Hurricane Katrina devastates Louisiana, give all residents of that State a "tax holiday" for, say, five years.
- Public education is fraying and failing, give parents tax credits to move their children to decent schools of their choosing.
- Charity works better than government programs, sweeten to pot for tax deductions by, say, excluding the first $10,000 in charitable donations from taxable income.

Conservatives love to align themselves these days with Ronald Reagan, and some of them like to talk of being "compassionate." But, if we learned anything from Reagan, it's that "government IS the problem" and we should therefore "get government off our backs."

It appears Kuo didn't get that lesson. Pity.

It reminds me of the character Perry White on the old Superman TV show. His signature line, when something was awry, was "great Caesar's ghost."

-Robert Capozzi

Still Rendering unto Caesar

I had hoped David Kuo's disillusionment with the Bush administration would have taught him the futility of pursuing Jesus' ends using Caesar's means. However, this statement shows that, while he may have lost faith in Bush, he retains his faith in the welfare state:

"I am a compassionate conservative who would spend lavishly to help faith-based and non-faith-based groups care for the poor and do maintain a ridiculous optimism that such a thing would be transformative."

David, a lot of libertarians would like to see charitable organizations lavished with generous donations, however, we do not believe good intentions justifies violating the Eighth Commandment.