The Great Conservative Hoax

"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America. "

Slip Sliding Away

"For the first time in the 11 years that the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal have been publishing the Index of Economic Freedom, the U.S. has dropped out of the top 10 freest economies in the world."


We're #12! We're #12! We're #12! Whooo-hoooo!

I wonder what they'll choose to talk about on talk radio today.

Moral Values

From Jeffery Tucker at LewRockwell.com:

MORAL VALUES: what voters tell pollsters they care about when unemployment is at 5.4%, the stock market is rising, the Fed is holding interest rates at 1%, and no one has the stomach to look at the massacre being carried out in a foreign land by their own government.

Legislating Morality

Bill Bennett suggests that voters have given W a mandate to legislate morality.

02-Nov-2004 6:30am

I think that I am going to vote today. I know that this is a completely stupid thing for me to do. The line is going to be tremendously long. Some people voted days earlier to avoid the rush, but still spent hours waiting in line to cast their early vote.

Why do we do this? Is it because we want our voice heard? Is it because we think that it is our civic duty? Is it because we think we’ll change the world?

No. We have bought in to the crap, “If you don’t vote then you have no right to complain.” That statement is total bull. Just because I didn’t vote on how my hair was going to fall out does not mean that I can’t get miffed that I have a patch of hair in the front of my head that is starting to resemble the state of Florida. (I now fondly refer to that lovely patch as “my peninsula”.)

The fact is, we have a need to complain. Not being able to complain about Washington would be like trying to hold in all your farts for a year.

It is as if I was a slave and my massa is going to beat me. But my massa is a benevolent massa so he’s going to let me vote on whether I want to be whipped 98 times or 97 times. And I’ll vote for that lesser of evils, 97 lashes, because if I don’t vote I don’t have the right to scream, “Oh lawdy Jesus massa please doan beat me no mo!”

You have to vote because eventually you’ll get in to some political conversation with someone who is a total idiot. He’ll have nothing thoughtful to offer but possibly regurgitate something he heard Hannity, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh say. But when he finds out that you didn’t vote, he then has an out. “Well, if you didn’t vote then you have no right to complain!” Just bite me Uncle Tom!!

So, at some point this morning I’m going to go stand in line so that I have a right to complain. The problem with Bush and Kerry is that you can’t figure out which one is equivalent to 97 lashes and which is 98.

Given that Bush and Kerry are just fascist butt faces, I’m going to vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian. Voting Libertarian always draws the ire of Republicans and Democrats. Democrats can’t figure out what a Libertarian is because in their world view there are only Democrats, the benevolent mattress moisteners, and there are Republicans, the evil bible thumping corporatist racist homophobe nature-raping exploitive rich Republicans. Trying to explain Libertarianism to a Democrat voter makes a message pop up on his forehead that reads, “Abort, Retry, Fail?”

In the end, Democrats are ok with my vote for the Libertarian. Since I have short hair, clean skin, wear plaid shirts, live in the suburbs, and my testicles are not pierced, they figure that there is no way I’m voting for thier guy. As long as I’m not voting for a Republican then that’s a good thing by them. And I just leave it at that because it is futile to try to get a Democrat to understand that supporting free enterprise does not axiomatically imply that you want to put gay people and Mexicans in a gas chamber. For them the concept is like trying to divide a number by zero. Abort, Retry, Fail!

Republicans, on the other hand, know dang well what a Libertarian is. They’ll lie about it and say that Libertarians are all about making crack and kiddie porn legal. But they know better.

Democrats, being the artsy fartsy types, only make the Republicans feel smug and superior. But Libertarians expose Republicans for the big government fascists that they are. They know it is true and it really pisses them off. If you want to see a Republican suddenly start defending the welfare/nanny state, just throw a little libertarianism his way.

When a Republican knows that you know that he knows that his guy is a lying big government fascist butt face, he’ll say one of three things:
1. “A vote for the Libertarian is like a vote for the Democrat!”
2. “Republicans are not as bad as the Democrats!”
3. “You know your guy has no chance of winning!”

1 & 2) How is a vote for a Libertarian like a vote for the Democrat? That’s just stupid. Who said that Republicans are the lesser of evils? If you look at national politics over the past 40 years, Republicans have expanded the welfare state greater than Democrats.

3) OK Einstein, I know that the Libertarian is not going to win. But what am I going to win if I vote for the other guy? Since I’m going to get whipped 97 or 98 times anyway and I’ll probably pass out at whip number 11, I might as well cast my ballot for, “Massa, I vote for you stickin’ that whip up yo ass and leavin’ me the hell alone!” It gives me a tiny little sense of rebellious satisfaction and besides, I still get the right to whine, complain, and compare scars with my fellow slaves.

Election Tomorrow

• No child left behind.
• Medicare drug benefit
• PATRIOT Act
• Unprovoked war
• $477 billion deficit
• Farm subsidies
• Protectionism
• AmeriCorps expansion
• Biggest spender in 40 years

I listen to talk radio almost never anymore. Thanks to Audible.com I have much more interesting things to listen to in my car.

I did take just a few minutes to listen to a little of Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity this week. When I say a few minutes, I mean just that.

In just those few minutes each, I did note a sense of urgency in their voices. To sum it all up, the country is going to hell if Kerry wins.

I would think that they secretly hope for a Kerry win. It would seem that it would be more difficult and a bigger weight on your conscience to have to defend a statist president rather than bash him.

Boortz has the luxury of calling himself a libertarian. This means that during a slow week of Democratic welfare-statism he can always switch over and start taunting the Christian Coalition. And if the Christian Coalition is not up to much he can slam smokers or talk about his dog and airplane.

Murray Sabrin writes:

"George Bush has given us Ted Kennedy’s education policy, Dick Gephardt’s trade policy, Hillary Clinton’s healthcare policies, and LBJ’s foreign policy."

If you do a Google search on Neal Boortz's web site under the term "stem cell" you'll find where he's brought up several times this whole issue of George Bush and stem cell research.

Boortz correctly makes the point that Bush is not banning stem cell research but rather he is banning federal funding of stem cell research.

He says that the liberals and the media are being dishonest when they don't make this distinction. I would agree.

But then he will throw in a line like this:

"And besides, can someone show me where in the Constitution it mentions funding stem cell research?"

I would agree that stem cell research should not be funded by the federal government. Likewise, the federal government should not be involved in funding any scientific research.

Is Neal suggesting that this is the heart of the issue? If he were talking about a Libertarian Party candidate's opposition to federal funding of stem cell research then such a comment would be appropriate. Is he suggesting that W's opposition to federal funding of stem cell research comes from his love of the Constitution?

Usually Neal is quick to criticize any politician that tries to mix his religion with his politics. Certainly Bush's position on stem cell research is meant to appease his bible thumping consituancy, not the Constitution thumpers.

The thought for this post hit me when I came across this item in WhiteHouse.gov which brags about Bush signing in to law the "21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which authorizes funding for nanotechnology research and development (R&D) over four years, starting in FY 2005."

If I had time to spare I'd call Neal and ask him where in the Constitution it mentions funding nanotechnology.

I'm not sure what Neal's motivation is for giving W a free pass on the issue of stem cell research, but I suspect that like W's motivation, it does not have anything to do with the Constitution.

If this were Clinton....

Rush and Sean Hannity would be raising holy hell. But this is flag waving GW Bush, so I guess it is OK.

The Bush administration wants to have Americans screened for mental disorders. Most notably, school children. If the government determines that your child has a mental disorder, then I'm sure you'd be required to drug him with medications from companies that give money to the Republican Party lest you be cited for child abuse.

World Net Daily has written about it.

Texas Republican Ron Paul tried to pass a bill to put a stop to it. But, to no surprise, few Republicans sided with him. You may find Ron Paul's comments about the program here and here.

The most chilling aspect of this mental health program is the Orwellian name of the program. It is called the New Freedom Initiative. Feels all warm and fuzzy, no? Kind of like the PATRIOT Act and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Even if you are not impressed by the Brave New World aspects of this program, it still reaks of big obtrusive government. You may read W's own words here.

Bob Barr reviews The Bush Betrayal and explains why Bush is not a man of his word:

Now, if [someone] were to ask you which recent president’s term in office was characterized by support for the so-called assault weapon ban, a huge increase in deficit spending, bigger budgets for virtually every domestic program—including Americorps and the National Endowment for the Arts—and signing into law a massive increase in federal government regulation of political speech, whose administration would you suspect they were describing? That of Democrat Bill Clinton? Nope. They’d be talking about the first term of Republican President George W. Bush.

Lew exposes Bush's Ownership Society for what it is.

Consider the words from a White House Fact Sheet on the topic from June 17, 2002, as discovered by James Bovard. "The single biggest barrier to homeownership," it reads, "is accumulating funds for a down payment."

And thus does the Bush administration support every manner of housing subsidy and free-credit scheme to guarantee that all people can own right now the most expensive good that they will ever purchase.

Bush Vows to Help Restore Lost Manufacturing Jobs

Uh oh. This scares me. Bush was wearing a Union cap while giving a speech on Labor Day. When Washington wants to "fix" something, it inevitably makes things worse and you can be sure that it is going to cost us dearly.

So, what is W going to do to save manufacturing jobs? There's an election coming. My guess is more protectionism (he's a Republican -- what do you expect?) and more pushes for so-called fair trade. Click here to see what what's coming.

Check out this site for a better understanding of the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism.

Big Brother Is Watching You

You won't be able to open a mutual fund accout without Big Brother checking up on you. Click Clark Howard's show notes for details.

Greenspan on Gold (1966)

Republican Socialism Won't Work Either

Continuing on the theme of my previous post on why Bush's adventure in Iraq will fail, Lew Rockwell writes about the U.S.'s approach of trying to build a centrally planned Iraq:

"It's the socialist calculation problem, identified by Mises in 1920, all over again. The US decided early on that it would not allow the country to be managed privately. It has kicked out cell phone companies, airlines, and oil field operators it has not specifically approved. What this means is that the US is attempting to rebuild the country socialistically – in both means and ends – which cannot work."

Operation Washington-style Iraqi Freedom

Once it became obvious that Iraq was no threat to the United States, the biggest excuse for invading Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, hence the name of the undeclared war, "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

But as this article by Gerald P. O'Driscoll and Lee Hoskins points out, the U.S. isn't even bringing freedom to Iraq:

"Bush administration officials are reportedly unwilling even to discuss privatizing Iraq's oil. If the White House does not establish private property rights in Iraq, especially for its principal resource, then the United States will have fought a war to maintain a Soviet economy in the Middle East. Before long, one dictator will be replaced with another. The lives lost and money spent will have been for naught. "

Bush = Big Government

Doug Bandow says, "We have finally stopped paying for government this year, but just barely. And if the Bush administration has its way, Americans will pay a lot more next year. Never mind his rhetoric: President Bush is an enthusiastic advocate of big government."

Conservative Voters Duped Again

My conservative friends are once again all giddy about GW's tax cuts. Their loyalty to the party has finally paid off, right?

Maybe this year, but what about in the years to come? These tax cuts are targeted towards traditional conservative voters who have a vague desire for smaller government, but haven't a clue about what small government entails. For the most part, all a Republican politician has to do is mouth the words "tax cut" and these conservative voters will loyally pull the Republican lever on voting day.

While GW is proposing tax cuts out of one side of his mouth, he's promising massive increases in government loot transfers out of the other side. How will he pay for the huge increases in government spending? Borrowing.

In the short term, we'll get our tax cuts and the looters will get their government goodies. It may buy GW another 4 years in the White House. However, in the long run the bills are going to have to be paid. To pay for GW's spending spree, a future president & congress will either have to raise taxes significantly or monetize the debt (print money). Given that tax increases are never popular, my bet is that the debt will be addressed with inflated dollars.

So while conservatives may find a tax cut to be a wonderful thing, will it really amount to anything if their dollars are worth less down the road?

Jeffrey Tucker elaborates on this very topic. Click here for his opinion.

GOP Should Give Spending Cuts a Chance

Almost 10 years after the GOP swept into Congress, it is evident that the self-proclaimed party of limited government has become the party of unlimited spending. The GOP Congress has delivered three of the top five largest spending sprees in American history -- the other two occurred during World War II.

Click here for Veronique de Rugy's and Tad DeHaven's rant of the Republican Congress at Cato.org.

Republican Spending Orgy 2003

They told us, "All we need is a Republican in the White House and a majority in Congress...."

Ron Paul warns about Congress' 2003 budget:

Federal tax revenues have dropped dramatically since the stock market peaks of 2000. Rising unemployment continues to reduce the number of taxpayers, while plummeting investor portfolios no longer produce the huge capital gains and dividend revenues that flooded federal coffers in the 1990s. This drop in revenues was of course predictable, given the faltering economy and enormous market losses of the past two years.

Yet has Congress responded to this new reality with spending freezes or other austerity measures? Hardly. Its response has been exactly opposite, passing a 2003 budget that is a whopping 22% higher than just two years ago! Not only is spending way up in terms of total dollars, but the rate at which spending grows each year is accelerating rapidly. In fact, a federal budget that once took a century to double in size will now do so in only about five years. This rate of growth cannot be sustained unless Congress truly intends to bankrupt the federal government.

Click here for the rest.

Another Step In The Wrong Direction

President Bush's recent State of the Union speech shows that he is still moving in the wrong direction. But, since he's taking a smaller step in the wrong direction than last year (he proposed only 20 new government initiatives versus 39 last year -- whoo hooo!) conservatives will still say that he's cutting government and will continue to salivate every time his image flashes on Fox News.

In his speech Bush did not mention any way that government would be cut or trimmed. Read the Cato Institute's analysis of Bush's speech to get the nitty gritty details of his speech.

Republicans Waste Their Votes Yet Again

The much talked about first legitimately elected Republican governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue, has just taken office. One of his first acts as the new Governor is to propose a budget that raises taxes in a big way!!

While the rest of us are tightening our belts to control our spending to deal with the sluggish economy, this Republican cannot find it in himself to do the same.

Click here to read about it in the AJC.

Bigger Is Better

I guess it is becoming obvious that Bush is nothing but a left-winger. It is one thing when advocates of free markets harp on the Bush administration for its government largess. But it is another thing when a journalist like David Broder starts talking like I do:

Two years after taking office, Bush is presiding over the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. He has created a mammoth Cabinet department, increased federal spending, imposed new federal rules on local and state governments, and injected federal requirements into every public school in America.

While the administration and Congress have fostered the impression that the war against terrorism is to blame for rising federal spending, Fortune magazine writer Jeff Birnbaum has observed that "only about a third of the additional spending this year can be attributed to the war on terror. The rest is testament to a fact that predates Sept. 11: The era of big government has returned."

Click here for the rest of Broder's comments.

Bush Won't Touch The AMT

By his behavior, George Bush is obviously not for smaller government. But, he does need to keep is Republican voting sheep in the herd. To do so he is proposing tax cuts. (Remember, his previous big tax cuts have not even kicked in yet.) Lew Rockwell points out that the Bush administration has no plans to touch what may become quite the tax burden for many Amercians: the Alternative Minimum Tax.

I think that what is going on here is that Bush has realized that the country is in quite the economic pickle. He also understands that war will endanger the economy more. To avoid what happened to his father, GW is going to try to put the Laffer Curve to work. (The curve shows that tax rates increasing after a certain point would cause people not to work as hard or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue.)

I suspect that Bush hopes that if he cuts taxes (namely on investments) he'll get the economy to move a little closer to the sweet spot of the Laffer Curve, whereby he'll have more money to buy votes, expand government, build the American empire AND the economy will be better than it is now. If this works, it should mean that he'll have another 4 years to look forward to after this term is over.

Long term, he does not care. That is why he's not concerned with the AMT.

Lew Rockwell writes:

Bush may be the biggest big-government president ever, but his tax-cut proposal has bought him time. It seems that he wants to step up the timetable for implementing his last tax cuts (only now is the word getting out that the last one hasn’t even come into effect yet!), increase the child-tax deduction, and eliminate taxes on dividends (which, on the margin, helps companies that pay them, old-line companies with more political connections).

It's not perfect, but surely this is a step in the right direction, right? Not so fast. Buried on the business pages today is a stunning revelation. The Bush tax cut does not address what will be the most aggressive means of taxation in the coming ten years, the thoroughly evil Alternative Minimum Tax. If nothing is done about this, it will become a larger revenue generator in the future than the current income tax. The Bush plan does nothing to remedy the problem.

Click this link for more Lew.