The Annual County Convention for the Libertarian Party of Marion County (LPMC) has been set for Saturday, April 10 at 1:00pm!

LPMC County Convention: 1:00 pm at the historic Athenaeum Building (home of the Rathskeller), 401 E. Michigan St., Indianapolis, IN.

Please RSVP so we can have a head count: http://freehoosiers.ning.com/events/lpmc-county-convention

LPMC County Conventions are held once a year, for the purposes of: nominating candidates for public office, electing delegates from the LPMC to the state convention, making amendments to the by-laws and receiving an annual report of the LPMC’s financial condition.

Sumbit your LPMC Run-for-Office form online: http://indylp.org/run-for-office

For more information and the proposed agenda, visit the official website: http://www.indylp.org/node/73

Chances are that you've never heard of chartalism (unless you arrived here because you Googled the word). I've been reading an increasing number of articles which argue certain points which are central to the economic theory of chartalism. This theory is centrally focused on characteristics of a fiat currency regime. The basic assumptions and conclusions are sound although I have not studied it enough to have a fully informed opinion. Further, I disagree on principle with some conclusions on the surface level.

So what is it all about? Basically, the chartalists suggest that the state issues fiat currency via government spending and recoups (destroys) the money via taxation. Thus, fiat issue is no more than printing money and, if the government did not do so, there would be no money for citizens. This extends to a conclusion that the private sector cannot save money unless the government runs a deficit. This is further shown by using simple algebra with the formula for GDP. This reinforces the argument of the adherents.

I see a few basic flaws in this theory. First, if there were no fiat money, that would not destroy economic activity. There would be, at a minimum, barter activity. Second, it seems to ignore debt (or at least under-appreciate its role like most all schools of economic thought). Since private banks issue credit, the state is not the only entity which can issue currency (depending on one's definition).

Nonetheless, this is important. Governments can and do print money. The U.S. Dollar is essentially backed (primarily) by U.S. Treasuries. In other words, the value of the Dollar is derived by the use of it to pay government debt. The point remains that next time you find yourself in a debate about the nature of the state and deficit spending, one can not summarily dismiss the notion that deficits don't matter or the suggestion that the U.S. will not default on its debt. There are shades of gray to this. Again, I don't completely agree with all the assumptions or conclusions of this theory. But, well-informed (and sometimes even well-intentioned) adherents will make good points - specifically that this theory is sound due to its identity relationship from the GDP math.

One of the main goals of Stop Taking Soma! is to educate and inform. Shouting matches between ideological opponents and semi-informed debate participants are a problem in the political environment. If libertarians (small "l" or big "L") or other marginalized political (or economic) groups fail to understand the perspective of our opponents, we will risk continued marginalization and be reduced to nothing more to uninformed noisemakers.

For more on chartalism and its post-Keynesian cousin circuitism, visit the forum on Steve Keen's blog and read this thread. (Full disclosure: I have not yet read it.)

While browsing through some music earlier I was reminded of how much I like the lyrics to Rush's song The Trees. If you've never heard the song or are not familiar with the words, please take a moment to consider it and the message contained within.There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

I'll admit that my vocabulary did not contain the word "trilemma" until a few weeks ago. It's a natural extension of the commonplace "dilemma" where we have three options. Then, in a span of no more than days, I was exposed to two interesting trilemmas.

The first trilemma that I would like to introduce is the so-called "Impossible Trinity". This hypothesis states that a national economy can only achieve two of the following three characteristics: a fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, independent monetary policy. A nation with a fixed exchange rate is able to maintain a stable currency as it relates to the rest of the global economy. China, for example, maintains a fixed exchange rate by pegging its currency to the U.S. Dollar. Nations with free capital movement allow goods and services to be (relatively) freely traded by private citizens across borders without significant taxes or other restrictions. This is a common feature of globalization. Finally, independent monetary policy implies that a nation's banking system (usually via the central bank) can set interest rates and manage the supply of money without outside interference.

This trilemma is an important one to understand (and I think it is generally accurate) in the context of global political economy. Using the China example again, it is clear that as they open up their economy to freer movement of capital, they have to cede monetary authority in order to maintain their fixed exchange rate. This is one major factor in the accumulation of U.S. debt by China. If they wanted to exert a more independent monetary policy, they would either have to be more restrictive in managing capital flows (i.e. less exports to the U.S.) or abandon their fixed peg to the Dollar.

The second trilemma comes courtesy of Dani Rodrik, a Turkish economist at Harvard. Rodrik suggests that the world economy is subject to the following: we cannot simultaneously achieve a deeply integrated global economy, maintain national sovereignty, and operate democratic governments. We can only achieve two of the three at any time. This argument appears to hold true. If we want advanced globalization while maintaining the nation-state, governments would have to forgo much domestic policy - national policy would be focused on policies which enable global economic integration (this appears to be the general direction today, in my opinion, fueled by financial elite corporatism). The second choice would be to pursue globalization while protecting democratic principles. Such an option would require a global government which could act in the interest of the entire world under a democratic framework. Third, we could maintain democratic government and national sovereignty while settling for less global economic integration. Rodrik suggests that this is what the Bretton-Woods system sought to achieve.

So, in summary, trilemmas provide cool thought experiments. These two are interesting and are good to keep in mind when attempting to understand the working of the global political and economic system.

Well, it looks like it's been twenty-five days since my last post. That's pretty bad! My excuses aren't necessarily that great, but it's been a combination of three factors: a) busy work/personal life stuff, b) getting more up-to-speed on local issues/politics, and c) reading some books.

In the meantime, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced that he would not run for re-election. This was a bit of a surprise and big news here in Indiana. Bayh timed his announcement well with clear knowledge that no Democrat would be able to get enough signatures to have ballot access in the primaries. This will allow the party insiders to choose the candidate rather than the electorate.

I truly do hope to post more regularly going forward, but I am undecided on how I plan to focus my efforts. I have some desire to focus on more local issues - especially as the 2010 election cycle ramps up and I get more involved with the local LP. This blog may not be the best outlet for that. The national/global/economic scene always interests me, but I probably won't churn out content as frequently and would prefer to focus on analytically-driven essays rather than the news cycle.

I'm open to all comments, feedback, and requests... I'd like to thank everyone who frequents the site and enjoys my ramblings.

NEW LOCATION

The will be a meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee on Thursday, February 25, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. at Garfield Park’s Art Center, 2432 Conservatory Dr.

PROPOSAL NO. 39, 2010 amends the Code to clarify provisions with respect to possession of firearms on park property. The amendment will allow honest citizens to protect themselves in the park by allowing us to bring our firearm in to the park (like we can in State Parks). Please forward email and get friends to show too!  

 
Ed Coleman (L) introduced this proposal to strengthen gun rights, and to bring Indianapolis Park regulations in line with State and Federal Parks .  You can watch Timothy Maguire and Ed Coleman on Channel 6 (with video): http://www.theindychannel.com/news/22394972/detail.html
 
 
As it turns out, our Republican Mayor, Greg Ballard, has announced he will veto Ed Coleman’s proposal to protect gun rights in city parks.  It hasn’t even been heard in committee yet, and he has preemptively stated that he won’t help Ed Coleman protect our right to carry while in City Parks.  Now is the time to turn up the heat; let’s all show up on February 25 to the public hearing at 5:00 PM at the Parks Committee meeting, to tell them all how much we all support this bill.  Get friends to show up too. 
 
IndyStar quotes Timothy Maguire: http://www.indystar.com/article/20100202/LOCAL/100202032/Ballard-vows-to-veto-gun-in-parks-bill
 
Channel 13 (with video) interviews Chris Spangle, with FOP support: http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=11919374
 
To read a full version of the proposal as introduced, visit: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Proposals/Documents/2010/PROP10-039.pdf

 
Ed Coleman welcomes all help for his 2011 re-election campaign. Feel free to check him out here: http://www.indylp.org/elected_officials/ed_colemam
 

Birthday wishes from the LNC…

————
February 22, 2010

As you might know, today is the 278th birthday of George Washington. I expect you agree that Washington had an excellent attitude about the office of the presidency (he had a pretty humble view of that office) and about government in general.

When I look at our current president, his policies and ambitions, I am of course very saddened by how far our country has descended from Washington’s vision.

Here are a few quotes attributed to George Washington:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.”

“Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.”

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

Compare that attitude to the attitude of today’s Republicans and Democrats, who wish to maximize government power in almost every conceivable way, who think the Constitution is something they can re-interpret however they want, and who even want to stifle our speech with campaign finance limits and advertising regulations.

The Libertarian Party is committed to restraining, reducing, and limiting all aspects of government. If George Washington were alive today, I think he’d be proud of the Libertarian Party platform.

Please help us celebrate Washington’s Birthday with a donation to the Libertarian Party:
http://announce.lp.org/t/24229/86382/472/0/

Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

————
Paid for by the Libertarian National Committee
2600 Virginia Ave, N.W. Suite 200, Washington D.C. 20037
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.
————

From my friend Ed Angleton…

Ask not what your government can do for you…really, don’t ask, you won’t like the answer.

A letter to the Editor from Tony J. Keeler, Precinct Committeeman, Perry 24, Libertarian Party of Marion Co.

——————-

Libertarian City-County Councilman at- large Ed Coleman has introduced Proposal 39, amending a current ordinance prohibiting carrying a hand gun in public parks and trails. I have seen signs at parks prohibiting weapons, but was unaware that it included adults with a right to carry permit.

Criminals pay no attention to such ordinances or “signs”, but feel that most others will, being easy targets for assault. If assailants were to assume that every adult is armed, assaults would decline dramatically.

What arrogance, shown on behalf of the Council , to supersede state laws or the 2nd Amendment ! If we are to truly have a society of freedom and individual sovereignty, then we possess an unalienable right to defend ourselves with what means we choose, and take individual responsibility for our actions.

If you agree with my insight and comments, please contact your councilors and Mayor Ballard’s office in support of Proposal 39 prior to the February 25th Parks and Recreation Committee meeting.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100220/OPINION01/2200332/1002/OPINION/Defend-right-to-carry-guns-in-city-parks

A female Superior Court judge in King County, Washington has ruled in favor of individuals who sought to end a ban on carrying firearms in city parks.

Judge Catherine Shaffer did not mince words in her order, part of which was handwritten and issued from the bench following an afternoon hearing in her Seattle courtroom.

“The court finds that the plaintiffs have a clear legal or equitable right to carry firearms under the federal and state constitutions,” she ruled.

The judge also noted that the “court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact on which reasonable minds could differ.”

As some people are aware, Indianapolis Councilor Ed Coleman (Libertarian - At Large) has introduced legislation which would eliminate the unconstitutional city ban on individuals, who have gotten permission from the government by way of a permit to exercise their rights (sarcasm intended), carrying their personal firearms onto city park property. In other words, he has introduced a proposal to restore an individuals right to defend themselves in a way that would align city code with both state and federal law where such restrictions either don't exist or are expiring this month.
Now before the anti-gun folks have a fit, let's consider the following.
You walk up and down city streets and drive all over public roads every day with countless other people who are licensed to carry their firearms and have them on their person or in their vehicles either openly or concealed. The streets are not running red with law abiding citizens shooting each other are they? Do you feel unsafe walking around Monument Circle at lunch time because some of those folks have guns on them? Of course not. Interestingly enough, in some states (like New Hampshire) one can legally "open carry" into the State House (although bureaucrats are trying to play games with it now [see this link and associated video] )!
Where should you feel unsafe? So-called "gun free" zones maybe?
This past week we saw a faculty member at the University of Alabama kill three people and wound others when she was denied tenure. We also saw this month where an elementary school teacher shot other faculty members when he was told he would not have a job next year. We all remember what happened at Columbine or at Virginia Tech. All "gun free zones". Yet, that didn't stop crazy people with criminal intent from taking a gun into those areas and attacking people who were legally (but unconstitutionally perhaps?) denied the choice of defending themselves.
It was great to see the Fraternal Order of Police speak publicly in favor of Mr. Coleman's proposal. Unfortunately, the proposal caught Mayor Greg Ballard (R) off guard and he probably spoke too quickly when suggesting he would veto the proposal if it landed on his desk. There is never a wrong time to restore rights or liberty to the people.
Most conservatives and libertarians would expect Republican officials to fully support this kind of thing if they truly believe in protecting people's natural rights. One can only hope that the Mayor doesn't feel backed into a corner as after careful consideration there would be no reason not to support this except to play silly political games.
There was a rumor that councilor Mike Speedy, who is running for State House this year, has been interested in this kind of proposal in the past but never thought it would get enough support. Now that with the Heller and the Seattle decisions showing courts will support individual rights, there should be no reason other councilors shouldn't jump on as co-sponsors. But, again, political games could trump actually doing the right thing. We'll see.
The important thing to remember is that "gun bans" are "massacre enabling" restrictions and do not protect anyone. You can't protect the sheep from the wolf by making all of the sheep weaker.

Republicans are celebrating Lincoln’s Birthday today. As a Libertarian, I am not.

Let’s just say it: Abraham Lincoln was not a good President. In fact, he is rated as one of the most horrible Presidents of all time by most liberty-conscious groups.

But, before someone calls me a bigot, let’s make one thing clear. Slavery was an abomination. But the Civil War was not about slavery, at least not initially. It was a contract dispute. The States, sovereign as they were, thought that since they had entered into the Union voluntarily, that they could also dissolve such ties voluntarily. How silly. President Lincoln, taking a page from our former British King, declared war to settle this contract dispute. Ponder that next time you decide to break a lease. Lincoln did eventually make the war about slavery, in order to undermine support for “States Rights.”

A quick Google search reveals some other interesting facts…consider:

He appointed generals and war planners so ineffectual they make Donald Rumsfeld look like Sun Tzu. When he did finally find competent generals (Grant and Sherman), he let those generals engage in a bloody campaign that directly targeted Confederate civilians (Sherman’s March to the Sea).

He suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which allowed him to arrest thousands of U.S. citizens (including plenty of journalists) and hold them without cause or trial. When a U.S. Circuit Court overturned Lincoln on this, he simply ignored their ruling.

He won re-election in 1864 through a variety of questionable tactics, including having Union troops redeployed to states to pressure and intimidate voters.

He never had a particularly high opinion of blacks, starting from indifference to the plight of slavery and eventually concluding that freed slaves should be shipped back to Africa.

He fought for quite a while to preserve slavery in border states and only turned to emancipating slaves as a last-ditch strategy for weakening the Confederacy.

He kept border states like Maryland loyal to the Union by first promising not to end slavery there, then by hauling away political leaders without trial.

He responded to a Sioux Indian rebellion (sparked by refusal of the United States to abide by signed treaties) by not only sending troops out to stomp the insurrection, but by abolishing the Indian reservation there, canceling all treaties with the Sioux, and putting a $25 bounty on their scalps.

And the slaves he is credited for liberating saw another hundred years of oppression, violence, and disenfranchisement before achieving anything like equality in this country.

So while Republicans dine at their Lincoln Day Dinners, talking about “smaller government” and “state’s rights,” I’ll be shaking my head at the irony.

Passed along to me by a friend, I thought all of you would enjoy these random thoughts about gun control.

1. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”~Thomas Jeff erson

2. “Those who trade liberty for security have neither.” ~ John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of ’shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Hat tip to Paul D-R.

Did you notice a familiar face in the Indiana Farm Bureau commercial during last night's Super Bowl? The male lead in the commercial was acted by Sean Harshey. Sean, a local Indianapolis attorney, was the 2000 Libertarian candidate for Indiana Attorney General.

There has been much ado over bailouts and socialism, Wall Street and Main Street, greedy bankers and noble capitalists, and a myriad of other related catchphrases and ideological positions when it comes to a discussion of the state of our financial system over the last year and a half. The debate rages on as today former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker testified before the Senate Banking Committee and with Barack Obama's recent call for a new tax on banks. Volcker has suggested a ban on proprietary trading for certain banks. This is a modified reinstatement of Glass-Steagall which served to separate standard commercial banking from hedge fund like behavior.

Lately, the conservative mainstream has taken to siding against such reforms. Typical free market rhetoric has led the way. It's been suggested that a ban on prop trading would over-regulate the banks and inhibit growth. We also hear the usual arguments against corporate taxes which state that it such policies only hurt the end consumer. I'd like to offer an alternative point of view on this subject that I think libertarians (and Libertarians) should consider supporting. I'll present my logic one point at a time.

1. Our System Encourages "Too Big To Fail"

This is a complex and very difficult issue. My free market ideals support a position which would say that companies can engage in any behavior they want and get as big as they want. They should be able to do this so long as they do not engage in fraud and/or stealing. The problem with today's system is that fraudulent behavior is supported. Banks can engage in expanding the money supply at will via credit creation in our fractional-reserve, fiat monetary system. I recognize that there is a legitimate debate to be had on the degree of fraud that such activity constitutes, but banks are allowed (and encouraged) to extend their liabilities well beyond their liquid assets. This creates an environment which is recipe for Too Big To Fail.

2. The Federal Reserve Further Enables Such Behavior

The Federal Reserve is the watchdog of the banking system. Large institutions have a direct line to the Fed in the primary dealer relationship. The liquidity provisions which the Fed has created over the last two years has not only expanded its balance sheet, but it has allowed these large banks to trade potentially risky assets for cash. This strengthens their reserve asset positions artificially and allows for further credit expansion. In the case of the last year, credit expansion has been swapped for asset speculation via proprietary trading.

3. Too Big To Fail Presents a Hazard to the Broader Economy

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, random talking heads on CNBC, or any other person in power discuss why we had to bail out AIG. I understand their point of view. Most Americans who were opposed to bailout frenzy probably do not truly grasp the meltdown we would have experienced. No one can say definitively how bad it would have been, but it would have been painful. I would posit that Too Big To Fail would not exist in a true free market. That is an ideal which is too far from reality. Poor investments should be liquidated but are allowed to persist and grow in a bubble economy. This should be prevented.

4. Proprietary Trading Serves Marginal Economic Value and Enhances Too Big To Fail

Some large banks also serve as market makers by providing liquidity to investors. This legitimate role was developed long ago to fill in the gaps in the market to make it easier for investors. (More on this in a future post.) However, market making has been extended to significant trading. This is gambling plain and simple. I am not opposed to gambling, but it is important to understand that it serves no economic purpose other than speculation. When several large banks trade in the markets for speculative purposes, they create counter-party risks between each other. So, large banks (and other financial institutions) which participate in such activities ultimately enhance Too Big To Fail regardless of their direct participation in commercial banking. (For more detail, read this at Naked Capitalism.)

5. Too Big To Fail Risks Should Be Insured by Too Big To Fail Institutions

There has been a lot of arm-wringing that certain large banks already repaid their TARP money and should not be further penalized with a new tax. I disagree; although I would not position this policy as a tax. The government has enabled and continues to support Too Big To Fail. This should be ended. However, in the interim, this continues to pose a systemic risk. Failure should not be covered by taxpayers. As the FDIC collects a tax (fee or insurance premium) to build its reserve fund to address failed banks, so too should the government collect a similar tax on Too Big To Fail institutions to protect the taxpayer. (There is also a legitimate libertarian debate against the FDIC, but we'll save that for another post as well.)

It is not a popular position for libertarians to support government intervention in the markets. This is not the issue at hand. We must recognize that there is a close relationship between Washington and lower Manhattan. Our economy has been transformed over the last two decades to one built on financial engineering underpinned by credit expansion and cozy corporatism. This must come to end. It will either end by implementing policies which unwind it carefully or with a spectacular crash which will make last the last year and a half look like a walk in the park.

From our friends at the Libertarian National Committee…

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party (LP) Chairman William Redpath issued the following statement today in response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address:

“Tonight’s speech was a reminder that, for decades, the policies of Republicans and Democrats alike have failed. Libertarians are asking people to take matters into their own hands. Instead of just complaining, we’re encouraging ordinary Americans to step up and run for Congress on the Libertarian Party ballot line.

“I can say exactly the same thing about President Obama’s speech tonight that I said about George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech in January 2008: ‘Tonight’s State of the Union address went much as expected. Instead of calling for a more limited role of the federal government in American society, the President laid out plans that would only increase the government’s intervention into the realm of economics, health care, education and foreign policy.’

“I am weary of the President’s unspoken premise that only government–indeed, only the federal government–can accomplish good in our society.

“President Obama seems to be totally blind to the concept that government can cause problems rather than solve them. His speech was filled with ‘More’: more handouts, more spending, more programs, more bailouts, more regulations. We Libertarians want less government, not more.

“Not to be outmatched by the Democrats, the Republican Party conveyed its lack of seriousness in addressing this nation’s government spending problems by having Bob McDonnell, Virginia Governor for eleven (11) days, deliver its rebuttal to the President. If they were really serious about addressing the dire fiscal circumstances of this nation, they would have had Paul Ryan, a six-term congressman from Wisconsin, who has proposed the most serious plan of anyone in the two older parties to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff.

“Last week, Alan Auerbach, Professor of Economics and Law at UC Berkeley and US government fiscal policy expert, said that the Democratic and Republican parties are in a ‘death embrace’ with their government spending. The only political party that is rationally and forthrightly addressing the need to cut government spending and end our culture of ever expanding entitlements is the Libertarian Party.

“As Americans lose hope in Obama, we Libertarians are warning voters against running back to the Republicans who got us into such big messes in the first place. Republicans started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans made the false intellectual case for bailing out banks and car companies. Republicans argued that deficits don’t matter. Republicans gave us the giant Medicare expansion bill.

“The President’s suggestion of a ’spending freeze’ was especially ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of Americans. The amounts involved are minuscule, and Congress won’t accept them anyway. Will Obama sign the spending bills that ignore his ‘freeze’? You bet he will. Instead, the President should demand across-the-board cuts in all areas, including entitlements.

“The President talked a lot about jobs. Unfortunately, the policies he supports are responsible for most of the unemployment we see today. High taxes, minimum wage laws, hiring regulations, firing regulations, mandatory unemployment benefits, and other government interference make it much more difficult for businesses to hire and keep employees. As expected, the President’s prescription is to increase the dosage of this government poison.

“While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work.

“Finally, on the matter of political rhetoric, I call upon the two older parties to stop spoon feeding politics to the American people as if we are a bunch of overgrown children. These are difficult times that call for more than rhetorical flourish or positioning a group of diverse people around a politician. Older party politicians need to be specific about their proposed policies, as Libertarians are.

“And, I know I’m probably just wasting electrons, but can’t we go back to the days in which the President sent a copy of his speech to Congress and left it at that. The speech last night took 1/7000th of an entire year. I think the vast majority of the American people would agree that we have better ways to spend our time.”

William Redpath has served as the Chairman of the Libertarian Party since 2006.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

The President "did something unusual" today as he engaged the opposition at the Republican GOP House Issues Conference. I caught bits and pieces on the radio and television, and I plan to record and watch the event in its entirety over the weekend. I have to admit that I'm a bit impressed with Obama on what I've seen/heard thus far.

The GOP House delegation invited Obama for a Q&A today in Baltimore, MD, and the cameras were rolling. In what became an American version of Prime Minister's Questions (of which I am a big fan), Obama took questions from GOP House members. A bit of political wrangling mixed with solid debate led to a few honest answers from Barack Obama which put his intelligence and oratory on display without a teleprompter.

From what I've been able to dissect thus far, both sides scored some points. But, to me, while Obama toed the line between playing politics and denouncing politics, he scored some big points tonight. This is the Obama that I favored over John McCain. This is the Obama I wished we would have seen more of in the last year.

Let's be clear. I'm no huge fan of many of Obama's policies. Admittedly, I've always had an open ear to his anti-Washington populist message. Let's also be clear that I'm not so naive that I'd immediately assume that he has changed. However, his change of tone since the election of Scott Brown opens the door for a second chance.

The President now stands at a crossroads. Despite a poor State of the Union Address and a poor record of deficient action as it is measured against his populist rhetoric, his personality affords him the opportunity to prove Americans (like me) wrong. I'm skeptical of his commitment to cooperation and bipartisanship, his stance against the financial elite and powerful lobbies, and his willingness to support true reform and budget control. I'm very skeptical.

Actions speak louder than words. Let's watch.

Sent to me by a friend.  I haven’t verified the facts, but the picture is amusing! 

——————————————————————————–

Dear all 535 voting members of Congress,

It is now official: You are all morons.

· The U.S. Post Service - established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.

· Social Security - established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

· Fannie Mae - established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke..

· War on Poverty - started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”; it hasn’t worked.

· Medicare and Medicaid - established in 1965 - you’ve had 44 years to get it right; they’re broke

· Freddie Mac - established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke

· Trillions of dollars in the massive political payoff called the TARP bill of 2009 shows NO sign of working.

And finally - to set a new record: “Cash for Clunkers” was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009!

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that “services” you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system? 15% of our economy? Are you crazy?

Truly, the inmates are running the asylum! (And what does this say about voters who put such morons in office….hmmm? Maybe we need to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010 and just vote against incumbents.)

Once again… it’s official, you are ALL morons. I don’t care what your political leanings are.

The Supreme Court issued a significant ruling this week on the subject of campaign financing. It is a complex subject and the opinions authored by the Court illustrate this complexity checking in at 183 pages (read here if you dare). I have read most of them and will offer my thoughts.

In the 2008 election cycle, a group called Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie which was apparently quite an unfavorable depiction of the Presidential hopeful. Citizens United intended to distribute the film as an on-demand pay-per-view on DirecTV. The commercials which supported the film were deemed an "electioneering communication" by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and the film was not shown. Citizen United is a non-profit 501(c)4 corporation which has special non-profit status in that, unlike standard non-profit 501(c)3 charitable corporations, they can participate in the political process via lobbying and and campaigns. If this sounds complicated already, then welcome to the world of campaign finance in the United States.

This decision set up the Supreme Court battle which was decided on January 21. In what appears to be a unique decision, the Court decided 5-4 in favor of Citizens United overturning precedent in previous cases and ruling parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as unconstitutional. The effect of this decision is that corporations (and unions) may now use unlimited funds directly from the general treasury to engage in electioneering communications. However, such funds (still) may not be used to contribute directly to candidates or to other political committees (political parties and political action committees known as PACs). Further, contribution limits and regulatory disclosures are left unchanged in the decision.

An electioneering communication is one that clearly advocates the support or defeat of a particular candidate (follow the link above to get a complete definition) before an election. Corporations and unions were previously prohibited from such communications, but no restriction existed for individuals or various groups such as political committees or "527" groups. This nuance is essentially what led the Court to its 5-4 decision. They felt that Citizens United should not be prohibited from electioneering communications as it restricts free speech and argued that any relaxation of the prohibition must lead to the sweeping decision they ordered.

Justice John Paul Stevens authored the dissent. He lambasted the majority on two key points. First, he felt that the majority overstepped its bounds in the tradition of the Court by providing such a sweeping decision which essentially overturned two previous decisions and a major piece of recent Congressional legislation. Second, he felt that the consequences of allowing corporations to engage in unlimited spending on electioneering communications would be detrimental to democracy and inconsistent with the Founders' vision. Justice Antonin Scalia offered a concurring opinion which focused largely on a rebuttal to the dissent's view of the Founders' intent.

There is a lot of big money in politics. Certainly, the electorate is aware and skeptical of how big money can lead to big corruption. It will be interesting to see how this ruling will change the political landscape of the 2010 elections. The fear expressed by those who disagree with the Court is that this will lead to more corruption and allow corporations to dominate the political discourse. A more philosophical opposition to the decision is on the nature of corporate personhood.

I am not going to devote a lot of effort here to the debate on corporate personhood. However, briefly, we must recognize that corporations engage in contracts, can litigate, pay taxes, and are subject to criminal, civil, and financial liability. Also, corporations are ultimately comprised of individuals. This allows for an interesting tangent of debate which I will not pursue. I will point out that limiting the free speech of media corporations or even non-profit corporations would seem to be anathema to most. I would find it difficult to objectively draw that line to prevent large for-profit corporations from exercising free speech.

Money gives power in many aspects of society. There is no doubt to that. Corporations have a lot of money and thus have a lot of power. Power in the political discourse allows for views and opinions to be expressed, candidates to be laud and vilified. Exercising power also comes with a price. While most of the electorate will be unlikely to monitor great sites like OpenSecrets.org to determine who is paying for campaigns and ads, the disclosure requirements of the FEC enable such organizations to educate and inform. The media, advocacy groups, and interested individuals are empowered more than ever by the internet to report perceived improprieties and report on the relationship between money and politicians.

Our system is not perfect and democracy is a dirty business. Corruption will always exist, but it is the duty of the electorate to be informed and educated in a functional democracy. We cannot force this upon voters, but that should not force us to restrict free speech. This may lead to more corruption or at least the perception thereof, so interested opponents should take steps to counter this.

Be active and hold your elected officials and candidates responsible for their actions. Vote with your dollars if you disapprove of a corporation's political activities. Sell their stock. Boycott their products. Tell others to do the same. Last, but not least, be an advocate for better representation in government. Members of the House today represent about 700,000 citizens on average. Increasing the size of the House would lead to greater accountability, more equitable representation across the States, and less money involved in each race. This would be a far better remedy than restricting free speech.

I suppose I wouldn't be much a of a political blogger if I didn't comment on the Scott Brown election. It's certainly the hottest topic in politics today and will have implications on policy and action in Washington until November. In order to take a closer look at the real story behind the election, I'll turn to the data. Rasmussen Reports conducted exit polling last night and I've broken down some of the results in the table below.

Source: Rasmussen Reports

I heard on the radio this morning that health care was the most important issue to voters in Massachusetts last night. We've all heard the talk the Brown's election will likely lead to the end of the currently contemplated health care legislation. This is pretty much true. But, interestingly enough, Coakley had a seven point edge over Brown amongst voters who cited health care as the most important issue. This translates to 30% of the electorate voting for Coakley because of health care and 26% voting for Brown because of health care.

It is more interesting to me that Brown held a five point advantage for voters who believe the economy is the most important issue. This is a marked difference from the 2008 election where Obama dominated McCain 61% to 36% for the 63% of voters who named the economy as the most important issue (visit the link, select Massachusetts as the region and issues for vote preference).

Given that Brown voted for and supports the existing state health care plan in Massachusetts, it seems to me that the economy is the big deal here. (By the way, Brown did a pretty solid job of explaining his views on health care on the Today show this morning.) Brown also had a landslide victory over Coakley amongst the 11% of voters who said that either national security or taxes was the number one issue. Notably, his edge from this small constituency alone accounts for his overall margin of victory.

I see this as a true indication that Obama's support on economic issues has horribly deteriorated. He spent a large amount of political capital on bailouts and stimulus. He has attempted to claim success on the basis of stock market gains and modest GDP growth in Q3. Wall Street and the talking heads care about this; Main Street does not care. Most Americans see huge debt burdens, foreclosures and unemployment. To them, Washington has failed and Massachusetts has sent the message.

Marion County, Indiana Libertarian Party Treasurer James Majdak is quoted in the Indianapolis Star article titled "Public safety nominee passes test with ease" in regards to Indianapolis Mayor Ballard's appointment of Frank Straub as Public Safety Director - "Disarming the law-abiding public is not an option(.)".