44% of Americans are Libertarians

The Cato Institute reports that 44% of Americans describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal", which is pretty much the formula for being a libertarian.

Not only that, but Libertarians are starting to get more organized (finally). Says David Boaz:

"One encouraging point in the study: libertarians may be becoming more organized. In our 2006 study we wrote, “Social conservatives have evangelical churches, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family. . . . Liberals have unions. . . . Libertarians have think tanks.” In the past three years, however, libertarians have become a more visible, organized force in politics, particularly as campaigns move online. Note the Ron Paul campaign and the heavy libertarian involvement in the widespread and decentralized “Tea Party” movement."

When Obama was elected, I cheered myself up by telling myself that this was going to bring libertarians together in opposition of the progressive control of government. Looks like we might not be too far from that.

--

I've Been Re-Posted!! Sorta.

Did a search for this blog earlier today and found something slightly interesting. Apparently, my December 7 post titled "On the Front Lines", which dealt with the so-called War on Christmas and a website that was set up to give consumers a way of evaluating stores based on a criteria of how "Christmas-friendly" they were.

Apparently, this blog decided to re-post my blog, but in an interesting way. Take a look at the original and then compare it to the re-posted version. My best guess is that it has been fed through a translator and then re-translated back into English, because a lot of the language is not only different, but downright awkward. Anyway, it's still fun to see that someone has picked up on what I wrote and decided to use it.

--

Hiding the Costs in the "Private Sector"

Just got done listening to Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute talk about some of the secret costs that are hidden in the health care bill behind our backs.

According to a memo that was released by the Congressional Budget Office back in December, the Democrats in Congress have apparently been playing games with the CBO's rules on how the costs of the health care bill will be accounted. By requiring private sector mandates that fall just short of the 90 percent that would require it be included in the federal budget.

As Cannon put it (paraphrasing here): There is no real difference between the government requiring you to pay a tax for medical coverage and calling it a tax, and the government mandating a minimum premium that you'll have to buy and calling it a private-sector mandate. It's hardly "private-sector" or "free market" if the government is forcing you to buy something. Either way, you are out that money without making a free choice to buy.

So why are they doing it this way? Because this allows them to avoid including the involuntary payment in the CBO report on what the bill will cost, so they have been able to hide a huge amount of the costs of this bill.

Furthermore, that 90 percent amount is a purely arbitrary figure that the CBO has set.

From a recent blog post of Cannon's:

"Democrats have been submitting proposals to the CBO behind closed doors and tailoring their private-sector mandates to avoid having those costs appear in the federal budget. Proposals that would result in a complete cost estimate — such as the proposal by Sen. Rockefeller discussed in the Medical Loss Ratios memo — are dropped. Because we can’t let the public see how much this thing really costs.

Crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO’s criteria for inclusion in the federal budget does not reduce their cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation. It is the reason we’re all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill.

If someone sold you a house, or a car, or a mutual fund this way, we would put them in jail."

--

Ebenezer Scrooge - Progressive

It may already have been two weeks since Christmas, but I'm going to learn a lesson from old Scrooge and keep Christmas in my heart all year round. Or at least until today.

And speaking of the old miser, DotPenn offers a somewhat comical, somewhat truthful list of 11 Reasons why Scrooge is a Progressive. Included on the list:

"5. Afraid his majority cultural lens will drown out alternative voices, Scrooge made sure he never said "Merry Christmas." Prefers the more politically-correct "Bah Humbug."

9. Faults the success of the human species for bringing undue burden on the earth and advocates a Darwinian form of genocide to solve the problem of over-population. - 'If they are going to die, they had better do it and decrease the surplus population'"

An article from two years ago that appeared in The Freeman offers a more complete view of why Scrooge is a progressive for his reliance on the "prisons and workhouses" of 19th century England to take care of the poor and homeless.

"The treadmill, poor law, and union workhouses to which Scrooge refers were all punitive government ways of either helping the poor or of giving the poor an incentive not to be poor. So, for example, anyone finding himself in poverty could enter a workhouse where he would work hard and receive some small amount of food in return. The two men who ask Scrooge for aid are not asking for higher amounts of food to be handed out by government agencies. Instead, they are asking for private, voluntary charity to those they deem worthy.

After turning them down, Scrooge goes home and to bed. In the middle of the night he sees, in turn, the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future. He sees how he has turned gradually from a loving brother into a bitter, stingy old man. He also sees how unmourned he will be in death if he fails to be generous, with himself and others, in life. When Scrooge wakes up, he realizes that indeed he can change. In my favorite scene in the movie, Scrooge dances around in his nightshirt like a kid in a candy store, celebrating his power to change. And what is the change? Does he say, “Oh, boy, now I’ll support a politician who will tax me, as well as other people less rich than me, to help poor people?” Of course not. An author or a movie producer who tried to set up such a scene would have produced a much less compelling novel or movie. Scrooge is excited because now he can change, now he can get pleasure from helping others who are worse off. In other words, the lesson of A Christmas Carol is the importance of being generous, not the importance of supporting higher taxes on oneself and others.

Indeed, the modern Scrooge, instead of asking, “Are there no prisons?” would ask, “Is there no Medicaid? Are there no food stamps?” The modern Scrooges, in short, are those who advocate government programs for the poor rather than charity for the poor."

So there you have it. Scrooge is a progressive who learns that it is better to give freely of what one has than to expect the state to hand out charity. Not only does it make him a better human being, but it proves the value of charity over the imposed brotherhood that is assumed by the distribution of welfare.

Yemen, the Next Great Threat

Since it appears that Yemen has won the "which-Arab-nation-will-America-stare-down-next" lottery thanks to a few Al-Qaeda guys taking credit for the failed bombing of a airliner in Detroit, perhaps we should take a note from Unqualified Offerings about the potential consequences in facing down yet another country that few Americans could find on a map.

"Since some dudes in Yemen have taken credit for exploding underwear that hurt nobody except the wearer, we have two choices:

1) Snicker and remind them that when you have an explosion in your pants you shouldn’t really go around bragging about it. Especially if you failed to penetrate your target in the process.

2) Start mucking around in yet another Muslim country. I mean, we’re already messing around in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, not to mention financing who the fvck knows what sort of crazy Balochi bandits in rural Iran (although I guess it’s better than undermining the serious opposition movements by offering them aid), doing something or other in Muslim areas of the Philippines, and occasionally messing someone up in the Horn of Africa. Yeah, why not get ourselves yet another mess in a Muslim country? This will work well, I’m sure."

--

State and Federal Deficit Check

Sorry for light posting. A combination of the holidays, a road trip, a move across the state, setting up my new apartment, and settling in at a new job have sucked up most of my time during the past few weeks.

Here's a fun little site that allows you to see the spending and revenue of each state and the federal government. For extra fun, check out the deficits that several major states (California, Georgia, NY, etc) are running.

--