Monthly Archives: May 2007

Paul counters Dondero

Ron Paul on Eric Dondero:

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn’t be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they’re popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They’ve been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they’re doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don’t have a lot to worry about.

Reason: What Dondero’s said is that “there are essentially two Ron Pauls. There’s the national liberal media (and libertarian blogosphere) Ron Paul. And then there’s the South Texas good hometown doctor, red, white, and blue Ron Paul.” And he’s said you talk a good game about supporting veterans but they don’t know your positions.

Paul: All one would have to do is go to the veterans part of my website. I win so many awards; we have so many people who call us from around the country because of the work we do for veterans. My biggest beef is that the veterans get shortchanged because of our war spending, and we end up with Walter Reed problems. So that statement makes zero sense.

H/T: Reason: Hit & Run

If Taxation Was More Transparent

This YouTube video humorously illustrates some of the hidden ways we are taxed. The ad was created by David Zucker (one of the brilliant minds behind the Naked Gun movies) for the 2006 campaign to warn viewers of the Democrats plans to raise taxes higher than any point in American history. Unfortunately, it seems that Zucker’s predictions will come true, particularly if the Democrats can hold both houses and gain the presidency in 2008 (but the Dems won’t call it “raising taxes” but “rolling back the Bush tax cuts”).

I am not sure where Zucker stands on the Fair Tax but his video raises some issues that might be alleviated if the Fair Tax became law. Sure, the Fair Tax would not require the taxpayer to put coins in a meter or anything like that but we would have a much clearer idea of the taxes we pay than we do now. As it stands now, we pay all kinds of hidden taxes. When taxes are raised on businesses, the businesses raise prices to maintain their profit margins. These increased prices are ultimately paid by the consumer. Also think about what you are really paying in Social Security payroll taxes. The number on your pay stub is only half of what you are actually paying. On paper, your employer pays the other half but in reality, this is money your employer could be paying YOU instead of the mythical Social Security fund.

When you consider these hidden taxes, you are paying your normal withholding from your paycheck (which most people barley notice), your Social Security, your employer’s Social Security, and Medicare while on the other end; you are paying a hidden sales tax. If the Fair Tax does nothing else, it at least gives us the honest amount of taxes we are paying. We can quibble about the 23% and wish it was more on the order of 10%, but we at least know how much the government is taking.

Of course our representatives do not want us to know what we are actually paying. In this way, they are much cleverer than the British who taxed the colonies to pay for the French and Indian War. As we learned in history class, the items the colonists bought required a stamp which informed them of the amount they were expected to pay the Crown. This begs the question: how would history have changed had the British disguised the taxes the way our government does with our current tax code? Would there have even been an American Revolution if the taxes the colonists were paying were not so transparent?

Related posts:
Dare to be Fair

Tarran, has a different opinion on the Fair Tax here, and here.

To learn more about the Fair Tax and how you can help, visit www.fairtax.org

Culture of Corruption Update

Remember last year when the Democrats took over Congress, they campaigned on, among other things, reducing the number of earmarks in Congress. Let’s check into see how they’ve done:

A bill the Senate approved last week to authorize water projects contains 446 earmarks, and the House version has 692.

The Senate bill was the first to come before the chamber since it adopted new rules this year on the practice.

Those rules require earmarks’ sponsors to be identified, ending the secret process in which lawmakers anonymously inserted projects into legislation. Taxpayer watchdogs hoped the new guidelines would curb enthusiasm for earmarks. And they thought Democrats’ decision this year to pass a funding bill without earmarks signaled a dramatic shift.

If the water bill is a sign of things to come, the appetite for earmarks remains undiminished.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” grumbled Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), an outspoken critic of pork-barrel spending.

………

The Senate bill, with its 446 projects, has more earmarks than a version drafted last year when Republicans were in charge. That bill had 272.

What do the Democrats have to say for themselves?

“Just because there are earmarks doesn’t mean that it’s business as usual,” said Jim Berard, spokesman for Democrats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which wrote the House bill.

Democrats have taken steps to “ensure that the earmark abuse that has occurred in the past does not happen again,” he added. “Earmarks can no longer be inserted anonymously, in the dead of night, to please a powerful lobbyist or political supporter. While this will not satisfy some critics, it is a major step toward reestablishing trust with the American public.”

So because Democrat fundraisers haven’t been as brazen as Jack Abramoff, it’s perfectly okay to buy votes in Congressional districts with taxpayer money? This is not what the American people were saying last year when they trusted the Democrats with Congress.

I’m one of the original co-founders of The Liberty Papers all the way back in 2005. Since then, I wound up doing this blogging thing professionally. Now I’m running the site now. You can find my other work at The Hayride.com and Rare. You can also find me over at the R Street Institute.

Paul Krugman — Milton Friedman To Blame For E. Coli

First things first, I might as well just point you over to Cafe Hayek. Russ Roberts takes Paul Krugman apart, and does all the heavy lifting.

What did Krugman say? Since it’s behind the TimesSelect firewall, I can’t really get it directly, but here’s a portion of it:

These are anxious days at the lunch table. For all you know, there may be E. coli on your spinach, salmonella in your peanut butter and melamine in your pet’s food and, because it was in the feed, in your chicken sandwich.

Who’s responsible for the new fear of eating? Some blame globalization; some blame food-producing corporations; some blame the Bush administration. But I blame Milton Friedman.

Good for you, Paul. Who’s really to blame for fear of eating? I blame the sensationalist media. After all, when I gave up my TV for two months, I had a lot less stress in my life about E. Coli, world affairs, etc. I also blame a public school system that doesn’t teach kids the basics of probability, critical thinking, and statistics. You see? We can both look at something we hate, and manufacture reasons why they’re to blame for this!

What are Krugman’s reasons?

This isn’t simply a matter of caving in to industry pressure. The Bush administration won’t issue food safety regulations even when the private sector wants them. The president of the United Fresh Produce Association says that the industry’s problems “can’t be solved without strong mandatory federal regulations”: without such regulations, scrupulous growers and processors risk being undercut by competitors more willing to cut corners on food safety. Yet the administration refuses to do more than issue nonbinding guidelines.

That’s why I blame the food safety crisis on Milton Friedman, who called for the abolition of both the food and the drug sides of the F.D.A. What would protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs? “It’s in the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies not to have these bad things,” he insisted in a 1999 interview. He would presumably have applied the same logic to food safety (as he did to airline safety): regardless of circumstances, you can always trust the private sector to police itself.

As Russ Roberts points out, this isn’t evidence that Bush is accepting Friedman’s teachings. After all, Friedman would look at his spending, at NCLB, at Medicare Part D, and see abject failure in every case. Even when Bush has attempted to do something that might enhance freedom, such as an attempt to bring in school choice, or to privatize Social Security, it turns into a watered-down big government program, or a non-starter. Heck, as I’ve pointed out, I oppose Bush’s plans for Social Security with a pejorative description: Social Security Part D.

But to take Krugman’s bait misses the point. The amazing thing is that you can go into a store anywhere in the United States, buy some spinach, beef, and milk, and yet you’ll have such a tiny chance of contracting E. Coli, Mad Cow, or listeria that you don’t even have to think about it. Back in the days before a free market, you’d be lucky to buy any of those things at all. In fact, you’d only be able to afford them if you were rich. Not only that, you wouldn’t know if they were good or not. Chris Rock, in one of his comedy bits, mentions that eating pork isn’t really immoral, it was simply a religious rule for preservation of the species. After all, back in the day, a pork chop could kill you. Now we trust our food companies so much that you can eat raw beef carpaccio without fear. Back in the day, everyone drank beer constantly because most water in major metropolitan cities was infected. Boiling the water to make beer killed the bacteria in the water, and the resultant alcohol of fermentation inhibited its growth. Now you trust what comes out of your tap, but buy fancy bottled water anyway.

It wasn’t the government that brought you these things, it was government staying out of the way allowing smart people to work for profit.

But even more insane is the idea that things are getting worse… Russ Roberts pokes a hole in that one as well:

The other part I like is the implication that until the evil free market Bush administration got in power, we had a safe food supply.

FYI, Paul, there were major E. coli outbreaks in the US in 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1999. There was also one in January and February of 1993, but I won’t count that one. I’ll blame that one on the Friedman-influenced Bush the First.

In 1996, there were major outbreaks in the Friedman-dominated free market anarchist utopias of Germany, Scotland and Japan.

Maybe we can blame the German one on Hayek, the Scottish on Adam Smith, and the Japanese on one of their premier free-market economists?

Or we could realize that we don’t live in a world that’s 100% safe, and that no amount of money government spends, nor number of laws they write, will change that.

Posting this just to see the “Fun” that’s sure to ensue in comments

What can I say, I’m a son of a bitch.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

1 4 5 6 7 8 22