Friday, May 11, 2007

L.A. Times: Libertarian article posted March 25th, 2007

Libertarians' silver lining

The third party may not have much electoral success, but its free-market ideals are becoming popular.

By Brian Doherty, BRIAN DOHERTY is a senior editor at Reason magazine and the author of "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement."
March 25, 2007

LIBERTARIANISM may seem hopelessly marginalized in American politics. The national record of the Libertarian Party since 1972 — the first year it fielded candidates — isn't too bright. Ed Clark, the party's presidential candidate in 1980, received 921,000 votes, the highest ever, but Michael Badnarik, the 2004 nominee, garnered merely 397,000.

Americans continue to be suspicious of radical third-party alternatives — if they are lucky enough to be aware of them — thanks largely to media that foster a feedback loop of "they can't win, so why cover them?" However, including about 600 candidates on every level — local, state and federal — the Libertarian Party attracted more than 13 million votes in 2006.

But counting votes for third parties isn't the best way to judge the growth and prospects of libertarianism in the United States. Libertarian ideas should never be counted out in this country because they are at the heart of its founding.

The central insight of libertarianism is in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness (though no guarantee of achieving it). Government's only purpose is to help protect those rights — and if it fails, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

But from the declaration on, in some libertarians' telling, it has been downhill for liberty in this country. Certainly libertarian sensibilities were offended by the expansion of government's ability to tax, manage and regulate the economy and our private lives in the 20th century, and by the projection of U.S. military might overseas for reasons other than direct defense of the American people.

In the immediate aftermath of the New Deal, the modern American libertarian movement first began to coalesce in the works of such feisty American female novelists and philosophers as Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand, and in the insights of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

But the libertarian movement began as a reaction to how alien the ideas of unbridled individual and market liberty had become. When former Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce chief Leonard Read launched the first libertarian think tank, the Foundation for Economic Education, in 1946, his ideas about limited government and free markets were so marginal in the United States as to seem almost seditious.

Lane was investigated by the FBI in the early postwar years for daring to write on a postcard that Social Security was the sort of socialistic government management of people's lives we fought wars against. True Social Security, she insisted, was canned vegetables and slaughtered pigs in your cellar. She and Paterson refused to accept anything from the Social Security system.

In 1950, the Buchanan Committee, a House panel investigating lobbying efforts, found Read and his foundation positively un-American because they opposed price controls, public housing, the draft and loyalty oaths. The committee subpoenaed records, called Read to testify and ordered some of his supporters to report on which organizations they backed. One foundation funder, Southern California Edison Vice President William Mullendore, denied Congress' right to make such a "harassing and burdensome inquiry" into his attempts to influence his government. Mullendore got away with his defiance — but today's campaign finance laws allow such governmental intrusion.

When, in 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater used libertarian ideas to decry the excessive growth of government, he was defeated by what was at the time the largest margin of votes in U.S. history. He also was condemned as "psychologically unfit" by more than 1,000 psychiatrists (who never met him) for his belief that the managerial-welfare state in the United States had strayed too far from the country's roots.

Libertarian ideas had a tumultuous period of expansion in the years after Goldwater. Rand became a campus favorite, selling novels of uncompromising libertarianism to tens of millions. A Harvard philosophy professor, Robert Nozick, won a National Book Award for his 1974 book, "Anarchy, State and Utopia," which rigorously maintained that if we have rights, then most of the functions of the modern state, including redistributing wealth and outlawing certain drugs, are philosophically illegitimate.

Also in 1974, Hayek won the Nobel Prize for economics. Hayek is best known for his 1944 book, "The Road to Serfdom," which demonstrated to those who believed in a benign socialism that government economic control tends inexorably toward political tyranny. Two years later, Milton Friedman, a man as well known for his libertarian polemics as for his economic contributions, also won the Nobel Prize for economics. Libertarian ideas were moving toward the mainstream.

And then Ronald Reagan, who declared that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," won the presidency. Libertarians never believed that Reagan fully lived up to his small-government promise. But his libertarian ideas were a key part of the GOP's electoral appeal.

Over the decades, both major parties have successfully run on libertarian fumes: see Reagan's talk of tax cutting and entitlement reform; control over inflation since the 1980s, largely thanks to Friedman's monetarist ideas (Friedman also persuaded President Nixon to end the draft in 1973), and President Clinton's overhaul of the federal welfare system, which echoed the beliefs and data in libertarian Charles Murray's 1984 book, "Losing Ground." One of the biggest policy debates of the Bush presidency has been about privatizing Social Security, an idea in the works at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, since the 1980s. Introducing market incentives and competition into government services — ideas that originated at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles — are increasingly popular with local and state governments looking to cut costs and improve services.

A full libertarian victory is certainly unlikely, as a cursory survey of the leading presidential candidates going into 2008 shows. But libertarians can take heart in Americans' growing dissatisfaction with military intervention overseas, with the prospect of an entitlement state in which recipients far outnumber taxpayers and with government manipulations and intrusions in education, immigration, abortion and stem cell research. In such a political context, libertarian wisdom about keeping government out of our lives as much as possible looks more and more promising.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Unity 08: Could This Be The Ticket?

The-G-Blog has noticed a trend among the readers here.

A lot of people seem to be unhappy with both major parties, no matter what your persuasion.

I’d say that these people have very good reasons, and I’d tell them I’d agree with them on a lot of them.

And then I hear “Ron Paul can’t win. Gravel, won’t get the nomination. Libertarians don’t have a chance.

Well, now I think we may be able to fight back.

During some of the comments on one of my blogs, one of my readers mentioned she wished there was a better way. I suggested to her what I’m now suggesting to you.

Go to Unity08.com. It appears they are going to have their own nomination process, and delegates will be selecting a unity ticket to run for President. I’m not aware of any candidates endorsing this “unity ticket” yet, but I’m sure as the candidates start falling off the Republican or Democrat consciousness, they may be willing to make a new home.

How about a Gravel-Paul Ticket? How about Christine Todd-Whitman and Former Senator Sam Nunn? It could happen, with the Unity Ticket.

I’ve lurked around the site some, and it still looks like they’re still getting things figured out. I saw a moderator disrespect a delegate in one of the forums, but I suppose that kind of thing will happen at the beginning.

Could this be what people are looking for? I think its too early to tell, but its worth some research.

If you decide that you do wish to become a “founding delegate”, please send me a message, because I’d like to get credit for the referral (I wouldn’t get money, but I’d hopefully be able to use the referrals to gather more information to share with you). I'd send you a form email, and you could take it from there.

They’re on myspace as well, and I’ve sent a request for more information. No response yet, but, like I said, its still early.

As always, let me know what you think. Remember, I’m not endorsing this ticket, and I’ve stated many times that I’m a Libertarian.

I’m just trying to live up to my reputation as “the most independent political blog on the net”!!

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

V.P. Cheney to Iraq: "Its Game Time"

Vice President Cheney, fresh on the ground in Iraq, is telling The Iraqi governent "Its Game Time".

Isn't it way past game time? Wasn't game time in 2003? This is not a game, Mr. Vice President, this is war.

So basically, The Vice President is starting to say what Democrats have been saying for years. That seems to be a trend in this administration. Dis the plan and then use it.

You are doing a great job showing us the Democrats plans wont work, Mr. Vice President. Bravo!!!

To me this is just another sign that we'll pretty much be out of Iraq by the 2008 election.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Online Poker: The G Blog's First Ever Blog !!

This is a repost of my 1st ever blog. It was on my personal myspace page. I saw the ban mentioned on a Libertarian for President's website, so I thought I'd post it here. The dates have changed, but I think its still fairly accurate:

President Bush, last Friday, signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 into law. The act was attached to the more known Terrorism bill which was passed with bi-partisan support after heated debate. This legislation is aimed to cutoff credit card payments to from overseas gambling sites to or from the U.S.

I have never gambled online. I have spent countless hours playing the free games that they have on most of these websites. I don't generally wager money on anything that's not a sure thing, but I am very upset that this decision has been taken away from me.

This legislation is an election year attempt by our government representatives to show the religious right that they haven't forgotten about them. Evidently most religious zealots only gamble in private games, football pools, the state sanctioned lottery, or on business trips to Las Vegas, Biloxi, and other state regulated casinos. I'd like to see how many of our elected representatives that voted for this bill have spent time doing any of the above mentioned activities, and how many of them have (or had) accounts on online poker websites.

How can the government forbid something it has already essentially left up to the states to regulate? 44 states have legalized gambling for lotteries, and almost 30 states have casinos. Shouldn't each state be the sole decider on what they allow its citizens to do? That has always been a rally-cry of the conservative movement, and appears to be the standard when it comes to gambling regulation. Supporters, I'm sure, will tell you it is a national responsibility because it involves international bank accounts. That's just their excuse. The state or federal authorities aren't able to tax these transactions, so they're essentially left out of a loop they have been so cozy within for years when it comes to state-sanctioned gambling.

I'm disappointed with the Democrats for supporting this legislation. I'm disappointed with online gamblers who voted for the Republicans who supported this action, because they should have known they were setting themselves up for something like this. I expected this from President Bush who has consistently erred on the side of less freedom since he took his oath of office.

Its too late to change the law now. Anyone who has seen government in action knows that there will never be enough support to change this legislation on its own. Our choice is to lobby our Representative, Senator and President to hide a repeal in another bill (preferably in something that sounds patriotic and American, people don't read those bills), or to support people who want to hire lawyers to challenge this, and hopefully find some loophole that can give us some paradigm of freedom.

The president and congress weren't asleep at the wheel on this one. America was.

P.S. Please visit my friends @ www.kickasspoker.com and show your support. They offer a referral service that is totally freee, legal and above-board, and they are becoming innocent victims of the government intrusion into our private lives

Monday, May 7, 2007

The-Three-State Solution In Iraq

Senator Sam Brownback (R -KS) supports the Three-State-Solution. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has been talking about this strategy for years.

Independent news is talking about it.

The Corporate media (CNN-Time WARNER, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC -MSNBC, COX Media, etc), well they don't really report the news anymore..

The Three-State Solution would break Iraq into 3 separate states with a weaker national government. States rights supporters should love this idea. It would let the Shia control Shiite areas, Sunni to control Sunni areas, and the Kurds to control the North. The current plan proposed by Biden at least would divide oil profits among them, and the Iraqi people themselves (I know, where's our take, right).

This could be implemented quickly and efficiently, and allow us to get out, and I believe claim victory (although it be 4/12 yrs too late in coming)!!

I called The White House (you can do that, you know) to find out President Bush's official position.

I was transferred to comments, and was told I needed to call the press office. Without a press pass, I couldn't get thru to the press office. I was transferred to the white house website, which did not list a Three-State-Strategy, and then to the public liaison, where I spoke to Blake, who said that I'd need to speak to HOMELAND SECURITY?!?!. I'm emailing them the question, and I'll let you know the official answer.

Senator Johnny Isackson (my senator) supports a unified Iraq, and not a separation into 3 sem-autonomous states with a weaker central government

Senator Saxby Chambliss's office (my other senator) said they'd get back to me. I'll post the answer.

My Representative, John Linder's office (who I like, by the way) said they'd get back to me as well.

(contact info on your reps can be found on the left)

Could this be the plan that saves Iraq? I'm not sure, but I'd sure like to discuss it more.

Let me know your thoughts about a Three-State-Strategy in Iraq.

Can it work?

Should we try it?

Do you think its too late?

Of course its all up to President Bush. Its our job to ask the question!!

*******
UPDATE: President Bush's email response:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot
respond to every message.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.
*******
I guess there's our answer!!

Sunday, May 6, 2007

George Tenet Wants Me To Read His Book?

George Tenet has something to say. And he wants to make sure everyone knows it.

1) He did not jump up and down and tell President Bush that WMDs were a “slam dunk”. I mean, he did tell President Bush that the case for the war with Iraq was a “slam dunk”, but he did not jump up and down about it.

2) He also wants us to know that he spoke to Richard Pearle on September 12th, 2001 who told him "Iraq had to pay for the attack" . Of course, he says that the days get jumbled up and it may have been as late as late September or Early October when he said it, but he wants us to know he said it.

Mr. Tenet, I think I heard you loud and clear. You don’t want the blame for the war. And you want us to pay for a book so you to tell us this?

As far as I’m concerned George Tenet and should have been fired on September 11th, at about 12p.m.

Say what you want about September 11th (and I’ve heard a lot of different ideas, believe me), but there were definitely signs.

Tenet was a holdover from the Clinton Administration (HW Bush advised his son to keep Tenet on when he took office), and therefore had plenty of time (and information, we find in retrospect) to connect the dots.

But he did not. And now, here we are.

Mr. Tenet, I wish you’d have written a book entitled “How I Stopped An Arial Attack On America In 2001".

Now that would be a book worth reading!!!

Saturday, May 5, 2007

The Fair Tax Is The Best Solution For American Taxpayers

As someone who considers himself a conservative (even if nobody else does), I generally like to concentrate on social issues, the issues that I tend to disagree with other "conservatives" on. There are two main reasons for this

1. I like to argue. If I concentrated on taxes and spending, I couldn't highlight the differences between myself and the Republican party, and have good-spirited debates with other conservatives on the issues. So I agree with a lot of Democrats on a lot of social issues, that's okay with me. Be sure, they'll have their chance to disagree with me, and now might be a good chance.

2. After much thought and some reservations, I've decided to support the Fair Tax. To me, the Fair Tax would solve most of the problems associated with today's complicated tax code, and would give the power back to the taxpayer.

I'd like to discuss the Fair Tax with you. That being said, I'm not going into too much detail, because I don't want to bore you (its figures and taxes, fun!!). I do, however, have resources. ---

Basically, the Fair Tax is an embedded 23% sales tax on retail purchases. This has nothing to do with either state sales taxes, or Social Security taxes. These taxes won't change. But everything you buy (at the retail level) would contain a 23% embedded sales tax, which would replace the income tax.

Q: How did they come up with 23%

A: This is the average income tax embedded into each item you buy. For instance, if you buy a TV for $100, 23% of that went to pay income taxes for the people who made it, shipped it, and sold it

Also, each family would receive what is called a "prebate" from the government each month. This "prebate" would equal the amount of taxes that someone would spend for the basic necessities. If you only buy what you have to, you don't pay taxes (this is where the "prebate" kicks in). If you buy a luxury item, or more than is necessary to live on, you pay a tax on those items.

Q: Will this mean less money will be paid to the government

A: NO, this is a revenue-Neutral tax. The Government should take in the same amount of money. It is also not a tax cut. It is just a different (and simpler) way of collecting taxes.

The Fair Tax would eliminate the need for April 15th (not the day, but the tax deadline) for individuals. It would put business in charge of tax record-keeping and writing the check to the government each quarter. The IRS probably couldn't be eliminated (there would still be a need for some oversight, but not on the level we have today), but it would be reduced dramatically.

Also, that extra 23% that you'd pay for the item would eventually decrease, (the businesses don't have to pay the income tax, anymore and competition would reduce the price). A few years ago, an airline tax expired, and congress forgot to re-instate it. Before the end of the next day, almost all of the airlines had reduced their ticket price by about the same amount as that tax. It only took one company, trying to get a few extra customers, to get the ball started.

Q: Will I still be able to deduct things like student loan interest, and business expenses?

A: NO. You would not pay income taxes, therefore there would be no reason to deduct these items.

Q: What about my retirement, will it be affected?

A: YES. You won't have to pay income taxes on that money, or interest made from that money.

Q: The-G-Blog, you make it sound so simple, is it?

A: NO. I don't have time to go into really specific details. I've linked the sites and books below to help you gather information, and I'll be glad (and I hope some of my other readers that have more knowledge than I do) try to answer any specific questions you have in the comments, but ultimately, you are going to have to really look at the proposal to see what you think.

The Fair Tax bill has been re-introduced in this Congress (Senate S 1025, and House H25). It has some bi-partisan support, but it needs more. Rep Charlie Rangel (D NY) has supposedly agreed to really look at this bill, and he is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, so maybe we can at least have a debate.

Remember, lobbyists don't like the Fair Tax because it takes deduction, and special provision powers away from them in the tax code. Many in congress don't like it because it hampers their ability to spend our money on pork for their district. That should be reason enough to give this bill a chance!!

As always, thanks for the comments. I'm sure I missed something important, so if you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to post.



FairTax.org

Wikipedia/Fair TAx

Fair Tax Article

Blogging To Change America!!

If I told you that I had the answers to most of the world’s current problems, would you care to listen??????

Well, I’ve got it, and for $free.99 (I stole that from a Kanye song, sorry) I’ll share my secret.

Its respect. Its that simple.

I’m sure that each and everyone of you could find many things to disagree with me about. I encourage that. Maybe you can change my mind (probably not). I try to respect your position, and I hope you respect mine. That doesn’t mean either of us is evil. Most of us want the same thing (A peaceful, healthy and prosperous world), sometimes we just have different ideas about how to achieve the objective.

When I started this blog, I wanted to open up a forum for debate. Yeah, I’m more conservative than liberal on a lot of things, but I’m more liberal than conservative on others. I hoped this wouldn’t be like many of the other conservative blogs (I’m a Libertarian, for the record), where it generally resorts to name calling and motive accusations.

I don’t really see the same trend in many of the more liberal blogs I read, and that makes me feel bad for the conservative movement. Usually when its there on the liberal blogs, its one of those conservative profiles doing the accusing and name calling.

Senator Barry Goldwater’s movement deserves more than this!

Recently, I’ve had some trouble with one of my readers (I’m not going to promote him, but if you read my blogs, you know who I’m talking about), who I personally think is a fraud. I know, I know, I’ve had several people tell me this, and I’d already “outed” him on his blog (he took those posts down). I’ve sent several messages to this profile, and he’s yet to come clean.

Either way, I wish he’d pick on someone else.

If he’s a fraud, then this isn’t the type of place he should be concentrating on. I promote debate here.

If he’s for real, its still a joke. But either way, its not funny. I laid into him pretty hard, because I want to send a message that this type of thing isn’t tolerated here.

Anyway, I implore my conservative friends to discuss the issues. Name calling will never convince someone of your position. I’d give the same advice to my liberal friends as well.

From what I’ve seen, most of us LOVE IT and would never want to LEAVE IT so we all need to figure out a way to make the American Experiment a more perfect union, the goal our founding fathers shared.

As always, thanks for the comments, keep them coming!!
Make sure to visit The-G-Blog on the net








Friday, May 4, 2007

Happy Independence Day. In honor, I'm posting an audio blog. Listen to The Hawg Pen's recent conversation with Raymond McKinney, who is seeking The Repulican Party's nomination for President of The United States.

Mr. McKinney is not an independent candidate, but he has an independent streak, and some positions that I think could be described as "independent".



The Fair Tax: Why Won't Republicans Support It

Its fair to say that we need more debates. We have enough candidates to choose from, and I don’t think many people who hadn’t decided who they support before the debates were convinced. I think that’s good.

It’s okay if you have a chosen a candidate to support, as well, but not all of us have made up our mind yet. I’ve got a feeling candidates aren’t done throwing their hat in the ring for 2008, so maybe I’ll keep my options open.

As many of you know, I am a supporter of the Fair Tax. Governor Huckabee mentioned his support for the Fair Tax tonight, as did Governor Tancredo. Senator Mike Gravel has also pledged his support for the Fair Tax.

I did some quick research on these three candidates to see more of their thoughts.

I had trouble finding Mike Huckabee’s official website. A Google search revealed his exploratory site, and some fan pages, but no “official” Huckabee for president site. Weird! Let me know if I’m wrong

Anyway, none of these pages mention the Fair Tax, and his exploratory site mentions signing the No-Tax pledge, but this isn’t the Fair Tax

Governor Tancredo does appear to have an official site. It states that he supports either a flat tax or a national sales tax, but does not mention the Fair Tax

Senator Mike Gravel, however does support the Fair Tax, on his official site. Its on the 2nd line of his issues, on the front page.

I did some research to see Rep Ron Paul’s position. There is no official position, but from what I’ve read, he won’t support it because its revenue neutral. His supporters should explain to him that this is a tax that you choose to pay, so it can be a tax cut if you want it to be.. Its your decision, and I think he could respect that

So, a Democrat is the only major Candidate that specifically supports the Fair Tax. Why is that? This is a conservative idea, but conservatives won’t support it.

Is this a case of another Democrat who’s willing to step up, and actually address the issue with ideas, while Republicans scramble for wiggle room? I think it is, and it’s why I don’t generally vote Republican.

One of many, many reasons!!