Sunday, January 31, 2010

Humble Libertarian Comments of the Week


Corporations and Libertarianism
Reaganite Republican said...

I don't see why the concept of the corporation would be anything libertarians would have a problem with... it's just a legal arrangement between free-thinking individuals to raise capital and dissipate risk, imo- and is as old as the hills: the Dutch East India Trading Co. started with this sort or arrangement in the 1600s. It brings the market efficiency of a floating stock price to it's capitalization, and of course we need laws to provide the corporation the same sort of rights as individuals enjoy under the US Constitution... like freedom of speech. I've always thought that America's treatment of corporations as citizens, really, is one of the things hat made our economy so vital...


todd said...

The problem with 'limited liability' is that the little guy doesn't get it as completely as a 'large' corporation. If you were to form a corporation or any of the other 'limited liability' business entities and then try to get a loan at the bank without waiving your right to limited liability you would be laughed out of the bank.


Teresa said...

Should we not allow groups of people like unions to show political support during campaigns? I believe that everyone should have a right to free speech and not just certain groups.


Your Odds of Being Killed By A Terrorist In Flight
Steve June said...

For the record, that puts (in the 2000s) 45 from pilot error, 9 from other human error, 8 from weather, 28 from mechanical failure, 9 by sabatoge, and 1 other. According to the North American Air Traffic Controllers Association, there are over 28,000 commercial flights per DAY in the United states, which means more than 10 million per year, and 100 million per decade. That means the rate of sabotaged flight crashing per decade is 9 in 100 million, or that your odds of dying from a sabotaged flight being roughly nine one millionths of a percent. Yeah, I'd say those odds are worth the invasion of millions of innocent people's privacy, and the violation of our 4th amendment rights.... please.


Advancing Libertarian Principles

Andrew33 said...

Here in FL, groups such as the 912 project and DC works for US are pushing to infiltrate the Republican party at the local level and push reaganesque aa.k.a libertarian principles. The Irony about Republican voters is that they vote "republican" but want libertarian ideals like smaller government and lower taxes. My parents are pperfect examples. They said they would never support libertarian ideals or vote libertarian. Both scored strongly libertarian on the "Nolan Test" which proved to them the point I am making now. I believe people in different states should do what the voter laws allow. In Florida, with a closed primary system, a 3rd party is nearly impossible so hijacking the Republican party is the best way. there are quite a few 9/12ers within the REC (the FL RNC). Enough that the previous head of the REC was forced out in favor of a leader that will move the party towrds the tea party/912 movement. So I can't speak for everybody in every state except that I hope we can get people with real libertarian principles elected.

The Worldly Ascetic: San Bernardino of Siena

By: Murray N. Rothbard

"The great mind, and the great systematizer, of scholastic economics was a paradox among paradoxes: a strict and ascetic Franciscan saint living and writing in the midst of the sophisticated capitalist world of early fifteenth century Tuscany. While St. Thomas Aquinas was the systematizer of the entire range of intellectual endeavor, his economic insights were scattered in fragments throughout his theological writings. San Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444) was the first theologian after Olivi to write an entire work systematically devoted to scholastic economics. Much of this advanced thought was contributed by San Bernardino himself, and the highly advanced subjective utility theory was cribbed word for word from the Franciscan heretic of two centuries earlier: Pierre de Jean Olivi.

San Bernardino's book, written as a set of Latin sermons, was entitled On Contracts and Usury, and was composed during the years 1431–1433. The treatise began, quite logically, with the institution and justification of the system of private property, proceeded to the system and the ethics of trade, and continued to discuss the determination of value and price on the market. In ended with a lengthy discussion of the tangled usury question."

Read the whole article here.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Unintentional Libertarian Humor: Are You An Arachno-Capitalist?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Is this guy for real? I've got to believe he's just joking.



(H.T. The Mises Institute)

Friday, January 29, 2010

Think Tank Lineup: Obama's SOTU


The Cato Institute
State of the Union Fact Check



(H.T. Government Mess)


The Ludwig von Mises Institute
The Address Obama Should Have Given

But what if the president discovered the writings of people like Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand? What might such such an address have been like, and how might those in the audience have reacted?

In a new piece I've written called, "The Address Obama Should Have Given - For a Change to Freedom," I imagine such a State of the Union address for a change to greater freedom, and suggest what it would have said.


The Independent Institute
The Audacity of Obama's State of the Union

This is a decent point. Bush racked up the deficit with two off-budget wars, a bloated expansion of Medicare and tax cuts that did not correspond to any cuts in spending. And so what’s Obama propose to halt the deficit from spiraling yet more out of control?

"We are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected, but all other discretionary government programs will."

Let me get this straight. Medicare and war profligacy brought on the crisis, and so we will "freeze" spending, expect for Medicare and war—and also except for Social Security and Medicaid? Huh?


The Reason Foundation
Obama's Rhetorical Retreat

Not to worry, true believers, Barack Obama only sounds as if he's making sense. The proposed three-year freeze sham accounts for less than a measly one-sixth of the federal budget, and the deficit panel already has been voted down in the Senate.

But sounding like you mean it is half the battle—as the Republican Party has learned over the past 15 years. And one of the major political missteps of the Obama administration has been confusing the agenda of the progressive left with that of the American electorate.

Rush Limbaugh Tells Obama "Let Me Be The Father You Never Had"

Dude. This is one of the weirdest, creepiest things I have ever heard. Rush Limbaugh tells Obama "Let me be the father you never had," and then expresses his political disagreements with the President in the form of a heart-to-heart lecture that a father would give to his son, encouraging him to "man up," be mature, and take responsibility.



Listening to it, I can't help but laugh awkwardly. Seriously: "Let me be the father you never had"? That's just a really odd thing to say. Of course Mr. Limbaugh is a brilliant marketer, and I think this is exactly the calculated effect he would hope to have. He pulled it off very well. I am interested to see the responses this will get across the media and punditry.

(H.T. Government Mess)

Video: Ronald Reagan's State of the Union

Here is a full video of Ronald Reagan's first State of the Union Address to Congress. The man positively emanates charisma:



(H.T. Right Coast Girl)

Read what Ronald Reagan called his greatest regret here.

My Libertarian Notes on The Full Text of Barack Obama's First State of the Union Address


The full text of President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, as transcribed by the White House. (H.T. Huffington Post)

Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

No, sir. Our nation's successes have been built not on her unity, but on her liberties. To the degree that we have prospered, it is because that was the degree of our liberty. To the degree that we have failed, that we have suffered, and that we have lacked- that was the degree to which our nation failed to preserve its freedoms, suffered the government to overstep its bounds, and lacked the fortitude to fight for its liberty.


Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

Mr. President, you did not anticipate or predict the housing bust, the credit crunch, or the recession. While the students of Austrian economic theory (among them, Congressman Ron Paul and his former economic adviser, Peter Schiff) could and did predict all three, you along with the rest of our nation were caught off guard. Therefore we cannot and should not trust your assessment that the worst of the storm has passed, especially when the only economic school of thought that accurately predicted that the storm would come in the first place also insists that it is far from over.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

Mr. President, I think Americans do understand why bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded while hard work and responsible saving on Main Street isn't- because Washington took billions of dollars away from Main Street and gave it Wall Street. And Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, you voted for the bill that did that- the TARP bill of 2008.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)

And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

NO! No. No. No. No. No. You absolutely CANNOT say you hated it if you voted for it. You can't! Mr. Obama, YOU VOTED FOR THAT BANK BAILOUT! You cannot laugh it off and act like you're against it by saying it was bad!! You're right that that bill united both parties. Here on Main Street we were united in our hatred of it. But up there on Capitol Hill the Democrats and Republicans were united in their support of it. Both you and John McCain, both Nancy Pelosi and George W. Bush came together and passed that bill. You ripped us off, Mr. President. You sold us out to Wall Street. You have no credibility to stand up there and crack jokes about how bad that bill was because YOU FREAKING VOTED FOR IT.

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

That's really your excuse? Your excuse is that we had to take money from middle class and poor Americans and give it to wealthy bankers to help out middle class and poor Americans? That's That doesn't even make sense! I'm over-simplifying, you say? It was necessary to bail the big companies out so they could keep creating jobs for middle class and poor Americans? You are seriously using supply-side, Reaganomics and arguing that the benefits of the bank bailout will trickle down to the rest of us!??

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)

So you gave them our money. Now you're taxing them to take it back. Couldn't we have just skipped the whole thing?

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

The increase in unemployment benefits was actually a bad move. It has a net negative effect on economic growth and recovery by disincentivizing entrepreneurial activity and drying up productive capital that could have gone to actually employing people in real, permanent, value-creating jobs.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)

Tax cuts are meaningless without matching spending cuts. Otherwise, government has to pay for those tax cuts with more debt which tax payers will have to pay off eventually anyways (but with interest). Or it pays for them with inflation, which devalues the dollar so that taxpayers get to keep more of their money, but it buys less. You may have cut taxes, but you shifted spending into overdrive. All appearances, no substance. And in the end we'll be worse off because of your fiscal and monetary recklessness.

I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)

Gas, food, and other necessities will continue to become more and more expensive because of your inflationary monetary policy and runaway spending.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

You're telling us who got the money and how they benefited, Mr. President, but you're ignoring where it came from. It didn't stimulate net economic growth or job creation. That money had to be taken from the economy first, to be injected back into it. It was taken in the form of inflation, and credit hogging, and promises to pay for the stimulus with future taxes. All three hurt job creation and stunt economic productivity. You can point us to who's job got saved, but we'll never be able to see all the many different jobs that were never created because the capital and the credit were dried up. We'll never know for sure whose jobs will be lost because the stimulus package hurt their industry by driving more dollar depreciation. You show us one side of the picture, but ignore the other, Mr. President.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

Yes it can. By staying the hell out of the way.

We should start where most new jobs do -- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

That might be because the government is hogging up billions of dollars worth of credit in the credit markets to pay for its massive "stimulus" spending and bank bailout. And while you wax indignant about the plight of the innovating small business owner, Mr. President, it's telling that you and the Democratically-controlled Congress have allocated a mere 2 percent of that stimulus money to small businesses, and that you break the law every day of your administration by giving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contract money to Fortune 500 companies even though they are earmarked by law for small businesses.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit-- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)

A tax credit isn't a tax cut. It's a subsidy. It takes money from one place and puts it in another according to the criteria set by bureaucrats and out-of-touch elected officials in Washington. Stop subsidizing things with tax money and just cut our taxes, will you?

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

If it's worthwhile to build that railroad- in other words, if it will create value for Americans and there are no better uses for the money that will fund its construction- then the capital markets will naturally seek out and fund companies that will build such a railroad. Government doesn't need to build it in this case, but simply to allow capital to flow as freely as possible by not spending too much of our money, regulating the financial markets, or hogging up credit. On the other hand, if it is not worthwhile to build that railroad- if there are better uses for the money- then government certainly shouldn't build it. In either case, government should stay out of the railroad business.

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

You know what would create lots of jobs? Just cut everyone's taxes with matching spending cuts.

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade -- what some call the "lost decade" -- where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

The problem that is hampering our growth is government. China is succeeding exactly to the degree that its enterprising, saving, hard-working people are allowed to work and trade freely and without interference by the government. Market-based reforms and movement in the direction of a truly free market is what drives China's emergence from poverty, not the centralized planning of decades past that was responsible for starving tens of millions of Chinese because it was inadequate to the task of managing the lives of so many individual people. As China abandons central planning, America is naive to adopt more of it.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

Government brought on that recklessness with its meddling. It required and strong armed banks and lending institutions into giving irresponsible loans to people who no sane banker would ever lend to. Through two government-sponsored organizations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal government made all kinds of these loans with reserves artificially stimulated by the government-sponsored central bank, our Federal Reserve, and at interest rates maintained at artificially low levels by that same government-sponsored bank. If government caused the problem, how can we expect government to be the guard against it?

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)

I wish we had that kind of commitment out of you toward health care reform, the commitment to say that if a bill is no good, even if it "does something," that you will send that health bill back to Congress without your signature because it does not really reform anything, but simply combines thousands of pages of mish-mashed lawyerspeak written by lobbyists for health insurance corporations. I wish we had that commitment out of you on healthcare reform instead of the urgent and unreasonable desire to pass anything the Democrats and lobbyists write while deriding people with legitimate and correct concerns and criticisms as obstructionists.

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -- (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -- in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Government does not need to provide incentives for energy efficiency. Energy efficiency saves money, so it already has a powerful incentive in place. Government usually perverts incentives by introducing market distortions and saving people money when they do the wrong thing while costing them money for doing the right and sensible thing.


Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

Manufacturing goods is good thing for America. But how on earth should Washington know how much we should manufacture? Why is it the purview of one man sitting in one office in a house on Pennsylvania Avenue to determine how much the rest of us should produce? The reason Americans don't manufacture more is because the government's myriad interferences in the market place create perverse incentives- making the opportunity cost of producing real goods too high when a company can make so much more through the financial smoke and mirrors of runaway speculation financed by the government's money manipulation.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

Actually the best anti-poverty program in the world is the free market.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)

Why not repeal No Child Left Behind?

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -- (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment -- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

End corn subsidies and sugar quotas. That will make most of what kids eat these days a lot less unhealthy for them. It will also help poor sugar farmers in Haiti.

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -- the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress -- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

Why not disentangle the provision of health insurance from employment altogether? And lift the states' ban on the purchase of health insurance across state lines? These two things alone would be a revolution and a coup of the existing health insurance cartel.


So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Reread the note above.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

Read this. Your spending freeze is mostly symbolic. It does not go far enough. You were elected as the anti-war president, but you're worse than Bush. Cut the freaking defense budget instead of growing it, Mr. President. While you're at it, reform and abolish Medicaid and Medicare.

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

You don't need a commission to find out why we have a deficit. We have a deficit because the government spends more money than it takes in. Here's your solution: stop spending so damn much!

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand -- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -- all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

We did not eliminate regulations during the eight years of Bush- we added more. A lot more. The Sarbanes-Oxley act added a lot more. Multiple other policies adopted under the Republicans enacted a lot more regulations on every aspect of our economic lives. We we did for eight years was spend more than we made. Now we have to stop doing that, but you're just doing what we did for eight years under Bush, only worse.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.

Let's try reading Common Sense.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

Remind us again how many lobbyists you appointed to work in your administration?

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Ah- transparency. Hey, what happened to that promise to televise the health care debate on CSPAN?

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -- a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)

Really? You of all people are calling Washington out on being in perpetual campaign mode? Aren't you the king of that, Mr. Obama?

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

Hmmm. Change the tone. Like when you told a Congressman "Don't think we're not keeping score brother"?


To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)

Wouldn't you just love for Americans to be as scared and desperate as they were the day after 9/11? As willing now as they were then to let the government assume all kinds of unconstitutional powers and exercise unlimited authority? Don't you just wish we were clamoring for our safety and willing to trade anything for your empty promise to keep us safe like we did with Bush? Yeah be honest- you really envy Bush. Never waste a good crisis, after all. Your own chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel said that didn't he? Don't you just wish you had such a juicy crisis upon which to predicate more expansion of executive power?

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world -- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -- the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions -- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

Quit beating the war drum, Mr. President. It's disgraceful.

That's the leadership that we are providing -- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -- a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

Okay... I'm getting bored.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

Serving in the military is not a civil right. That's stupid.

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -- our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government -- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

Rewarding CEOs for failure, putting Americans at risk to enrich wealthy bankers, letting lobbyists game the system, playing fierce political games- hmmm... that all sounds like a pretty good description of your administration, Mr. President.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change -- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change -- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this -- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Yeah but you suggested you'd try to change things, not do what Bush did (screw us all) except harder.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -- what keeps me fighting -- is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "...are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

That's because small business don't get bailouts when they fail, not like the large financial bailout that you voted for.

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

If you don't start strengthening our liberty soon, I'm going to support the disintegration of our "union." There's nothing unifying or worthy about institutionalized cannibalism.


Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

You voted for the bailout.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Comparisons: Barack Obama's SOTU Address and Bob McDonnell's Response

You can read the full text of both Barack Obama's and Bob McDonnell's speeches yesterday at the Huffington Post here and here, respectively. Below are small excerpts from each speech side by side on four different issues where there seems to be some clash of opinion.

I wasn't at all happy with either speech, and will post at least Mr. Obama's (and maybe Mr. McDonnell's too) speech with my own commentary line by line sometime very soon. On the areas of disagreement highlighted below however, I tend to prefer Mr. McDonnell's words to those of Mr. Obama's:


The Economy

President Obama: "Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers."

Governor McDonnell: "Good government policy should spur economic growth, and strengthen the private sector's ability to create new jobs. We must enact policies that promote entrepreneurship and innovation, so America can better compete with the world. What government should not do is pile on more taxation, regulation, and litigation that kill jobs and hurt the middle class."


Spending

President Obama: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will."

Governor McDonnell: "The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household. This is simply unsustainable. The President's partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one. The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level."


Health Care Reform

President Obama: "Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people."

Governor McDonnell: "All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality. But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government."


Energy
President Obama: "But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future - because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation."

Governor McDonnell: "We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources, and we must use them all... But this Administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes."

Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party Saga

By: Jack Hunter "The Southern Avenger"



Hat tip: The American Conservative

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A Libertarian State of the Union Roundup

With President Obama's first State of the Union Address tonight at 9:00 pm EST (if you have killed your TV and want to view the speech live, here is a list of places you can go on the web or your mobile phone to catch the SOTU live).

Also, the Cato Institute will be live-blogging and live-tweeting the State of the Union Address.

(For Twitter users, use the hashtag #SOTU.)

All Rhetoric, No Substance

One of the best reads I've had yet on Obama's SOTU is this from the Huffington Post: "Obama State of the Union Address Will Be More Rhetoric and No Substance For the Middle Class":

I can already hear the empty pandering to the middle class in President Obama's State of the Union speech. He will be reading one of the most well written speeches of his presidency since he and his handlers realize their reign in Washington could be on the ropes.

President Obama has a documentable track record of broken campaign promises and policies that have virtually ignored the middle class.

...The only change the middle class going to get from President Obama will be the pocket change that's left in their bank accounts at the end of the month.

Seriously- read the whole thing here.


Advice for Obama

The "libertarian" Andrew Sullivan gives Obama tips on how to sell Americans socialized medicine during his State of the Union Address. Over at Reason magazine, they have better advice:

"So here's some advice for President Barack Obama, who was elected on a platform of hope and change and has, after a year in office, helped dash hope by changing things mostly for the worse. We write not as Democratic Party hacks who are slow to wipe the sparkles from their eyes (we aren't asking you to recalibrate your "cool, detached temperament"), nor as Republican Party dead-enders (who turned against TARP only upon learning it would be administered by you rather than John McCain).

Instead, we write as libertarian enthusiasts and political independents who think that the large majority of Americans that wants fewer government services and less government interference in our social and economic lives should, at long last, be taken seriously. That means no longer pretending that the people who oppose Obamanomics are all opportunistic Republicans or mis-informed voters bedazzled by nefarious special interests.

Your policies are increasingly unpopular because they are no good..."

Read the whole article here.


A Libertarian State of the Union Address

Dr. Jeff Miron, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute offers a "libertarian state of the union address," and I have to say I like it except for item #5: "Scrap the Tax Code and replace with a flat tax." Why not just scrap the income tax and replace it with nothing- or more precisely with items #8, #9, and #10 (Cut spending, Cut spending, and Cut Spending)?

And if you haven't seen it, do check out Ron Paul's State of the Republic address here.


President Obama's Lame Spending Freeze

Another Black Conservative points out that "the amount of the Federal budget that this freeze actually applies to is about 1/8th the entire budget. Worse yet, entitlements... remains untouched. Second, Obama is applying the freeze to the 2011 budget."

Reason Magazine reminds us that by the President's own reckoning, the spending freeze will save at maximum, only $15 billion in 2011.

Ron Paul also calls B.S. on Obama's spending freeze (via: YALiberty)



Yet even this meager, symbolic cut in spending is sending "progressives" into a tizzy. A blogger at Daily Kos is calling it "Unimaginable Stupidity": "Great. A single U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts is now dictating fiscal policy for the next three years. It might at least make some sense if it were a smart political decision. But there's nothing to suggest that it's anything but unalloyed idiocy." But another DKos blogger asks a question I agree with whole-heartedly: "How About Freezing Defense Spending?" (but I must add- How About Freezing Entitlement Spending?)

And at the Huffington Post, Ben Cohen is calling the freeze another example of Obama's schizophrenic economic policy. While I don't agree with most of his analysis, I do have to say "schizophrenic" is a good word to describe Obama's economic policy (though for my own libertarian reasons, not for Cohen's Keynesian ones).

Meanwhile, at The Liberty Republican, they are considering the spending freeze among other things to be a sign of a great lurch to the right by the Obama Administration. Yeah right! Don't be fooled, my Republican friend! The freeze is all smoke and mirrors and doesn't represent a serious commitment to reducing spending.

And I can't help but scoff at the idea advanced by The Liberty Republican, that the White House's decision to fund private space companies is a "conservative" act of privatization. More corporate welfare with your tax dollars is conservative? Fiscally responsible? A lurch to the right? If it is, then I definitely am not and never want to be "right."


Boycotting Obama's SOTU:

Christopher over at Conservative Perspective wants you to "just boycott the speech!" With a little more substantive analysis over at the Cato Institute, Gene Healy explains why Tuning Out the State of the Union is actually a sign of political health.

Awesome. I think I'll probably just pop in some Lost DVDs tonight.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Libertarian News (1/26/10)


Campaign Finance and Libertarians

This commentator thinks that the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law will be a boon to the Libertarian Party.


Scott Brown a "small government" candidate?
Meanwhile, a columnist at North Star National gripes at Libertarian Party candidate, Joe Kennedy of the recent Massachusetts special Senate election, in "Small government candidate wins, no thanks to Libertarian Party." (Calling Scott Brown a "small government" candidate is a total joke, btw. It shows that this columnist either wasn't paying attention, or is confused about what small government means.)


How Many American Voters Are Libertarians?
This month the Cato Institute published an analysis to quantify the libertarian vote. The result? "We find that 14 percent of American voters can be classified as libertarian. Other surveys find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 23 percent held libertarian views. A Zogby poll found that 59 percent considered themselves 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal,' and 44 percent agreed that they were 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian.'"

Here at THL... we like to hear that :)


Libertarians should "love government"??
This libertarian dissects what he considers to be some major "libertarian" illogic.


Libertarian Health Care Solutions
The Economist calls Megan McArdle's healthcare policy proposal "A libertarian healthcare proposal." LOL. Yeah right. This is a real libertarian health care proposal.


Why Libertarian and not Republican?
In a guest interview with Gay Agenda, Libertarian Party candidate for Congress, Rob McNealy says: "I am running for Congress as a Libertarian because I no longer believe the solutions to saving our country lie anywhere within the two party system." Ouch. Considering how long our two party system has been in place and how much good it's done (or hasn't), Mr. McNealy has a point!

Ron Paul's State of the Union Address

With President Obama's first State of the Union Address tomorrow, Americans should take a look at the real state of our republic by listening to someone whom we know is speaking from a position of principle and true understanding.

Neither Obama, nor the establishment leadership, nor the mainstream media anticipated or warned us of the housing bust, the credit crunch, or the recession- so their credibility is lacking and their appraisal of the state of our union should be suspect.

But Congressman Ron Paul and his economic adviser, Peter Schiff did predict all three. Let's see what their understanding of the state of the union is. As you watch, note how specific and technical Dr. Paul's speech is. Remember that when you hear the vague platitudes and impotent pandering in Obama's State of the Union Address tomorrow.

(Hat tip: Young Americans for Liberty)