[Salon?!--ed. Yes, Salon].

No need to be surprised: I think the Salon people are happy to take Bush-bashers from the left and the right. :)

Bob: what's telling is not that Salon published it, but that Bandow submitted it to them.

The "conservative version of Ralph Nader" is stil Pat Buchanan. I just received a piece of junk mail from him today, advertising his magazine, "The American Conservative". Interesting stuff.

Among other things, Buchanan is annoyed at the "liberal media" for not taking on the President. Here is a good quote from Fred Reed who is also at the magazine:

One thing the White House has done real well is housetrain the press. Even I can see that. Reporters today are well behaved suckups, like those fuzzy little lapdogs you could glue to a stick and use for a duster. Notice how we never hear anything about old Saddam? (Note that I’m on first-name terms with him.) I guess it’s not our business, and the papers aren’t going to ask. Ever hear honest interviews with the troops in Iraq? Naw. That’s not our business either. I mean, they’re not our sons, brothers, husbands and neighbors or anything.

[...]

Now, some people tell me that I’m all soft and squishy on terrorism and need to learn about realpolitik. They may be right. As best I can see, realpolitik is a mood of self-congratulatory pugnacity accompanied by complete witlessness about how people work. It is usually associated with paranoia and the empathy of a table-leg. And it isn’t spelled well.

Anyhow, realpoliticky friends tell me that what we need to do is teach these people a sharp lesson. If somebody shoots at us from the town of Falafel, we should destroy the city. That’ll show’em, bowwow, grr, woof. There is a certain logic to this. Dead people are inherently peaceful. In classical antiquity armies put cities to the sword, adults, children, dogs, and gold fish. It sure enough pacified them.

Also at http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/reed/reed5.html

gw: this gets to how one defines libertarians on the political spectrum. One thing most libertarians have in common is near-total revulsion when confronted with the political views of either Nader or Buchanan

One thing most libertarians have in common is near-total revulsion when confronted with the political views of either Nader or Buchanan

Except if they actually view Nader as vaiable alternative to voting for Bush.

Certainly the paleolibertarians grouped around Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute disagree with PJB on many things, but that's far from total revulsion. American Conservative, Lew Rockwell and Antiwar.com are almost as incestuous as the neo-con movement. But pray tell, how does a libertarian justify the violence being visited on the people of Iraq?

I am not a student of all of the finer points of conservative complaints against the President, but on the issue of fiscal policy I believe conservative wishes are highly unrealistic.

The only way to reign in government spending is to reduce revenues. Politically, this must be accomplished in a two-step process; first you cut the revenues then, when the debt starts to become alarming, you negotiate deficit reduction, trading $2 of spending cuts for $1 of tax increases.

If you try to cut taxes and cut spending simultaneously, you are in the unacceptable position of taking programs from the poor and middle class to give the money to the top 2% in a single, politically suicidal transaction.

President Clinton's single fiscal legacy was the 42% marginal tax rate (39.6 plus 2.4 Medicare)for high earners. This "legacy" survived his departure from office by less than six months.

Bush's fiscal legacy, shrunken federal revenues, an increased debt to GDP ratio, and prescription drug coverage under Medicare will be controlling fiscal choices for years to come, even if he is a one-term president.

Those of us hoping for meaningful tax reform in a second Bush term have some grounds for optimism. Remember Reagan's most important tax legilation, the tax reform of 1986, was a second term accomplishment. Prior to that reform, maximum marginal tax rates were 50% and the tax code was plagued with loopholes and deductions for uneconomic investments.

Since the income tax holds out little prospect for raising the amount of revenue needed, even if spending is cut, I suggest we look to inheritances. $50 trillion is expected to be passed from one generation to the next over the next 40 years. If the government collected 10% of that, our problems could be solved without creating disincentives to work and save. If all estates over $100,000 were taxed on a progressive scale, running from 5% to 20% for estates over $3 million, the estate tax could become a serious revenue generator, rather than a weapon employed only against the rich who haven't bothered to plan properly.

A few simple changes to the charitable deduction rules, e.g. limiting charitable contribution deductions to 10% of AGI and, in the case estates, 10% of the value of the estate, would ensure that the rich could not avoid inheritance tax. In addition, upon death, all unrealized capital gains should be treated as realized then, and the gain taxed, before the estate tax is imposed.

The beauty of this revenue source is that it won't cause unproductive behavior. The suggested tax rates are low enough that a parent wouldn't be encouraged to spend rather than pass-along their savings. The sales taxes that would be imposed on the spending would be higher in most cases than the estate tax. In addition, it is only fair that people ending up with more than they needed when all is said and done should give a little back.

It takes a fiscal crisis to achieve reform. I agree with the conservatives that Bush's policies have succeed all too well in achieving the pre-condition. I am more optimistic than they are that Bush will use a second term to accomplish fair and meaningful reforms.

Face it: This is about the front of WWIV fought in Iraq. That is why many CATO members are trying to contribute to a takedown of Bush.

Bush is the first president willing to touch Social Security privitization and School choice, two programs on the front of CATO's list of priority for at least a decade. They have sold out because of personal opposition to the administration's foreign policy and their endorsement of the Badnaritzian position that America suffers from terrorism because we are not nicer to Middle Eastern killers.

One major source of unease may be the growing similarity between the present administration and that of North Korea and indeed Stalin. The Kato boys are rationalists and this developing personality cult driven by blind irrationality (I assume that is what Cheney suffers from) scares them. As indeed it should scare us. One point for wsb: I seen many similar comments that suggest the need for a really big "fiscal crisis" to sort things out -- just remember the Iraqi war, is there any guarantee that this coming crisis will be handled any better than the war? And if it is not, what would happpen to America?

Keep it up, wisedup.

The "Bush = Hitler" meme is attracting swing voters like you wouldn't believe.

The US needs to rollback tax-cuts on the top 2% income earners while also pushing ahead with Social security privatization and medicare reform.
Yeah, I know that's a long hsot given that Bush is publicly opposed to tax raises and Kerry won't touch the intergenerational warfare problems of pension/medicare and SS reform.

follow the economics on this one.
The adminstration employs private security forces instead of using the regular army.
Initially the private forces have insufficient manpower and training facilities. the result is that they do what any business would and headhunt -- fill their manpower requirements by offering the best active duty servicemen much higher salaries. The result is a weakening of the army's moral and strength. The private forces develop extreme high fixed costs and turn a profit only when there's a war. Economics 101 says that where there's a pot of money someone will find a way to get to it. The end result is the development of a powerful military force that takes no oath of allegiance and is driven by economic forces to stimulate the need for their services. Hitler used money provided by Krups to staff the Brown Shirts.
Given the clear economic advantage of using regular army, why is the administration so keen on using private forces?

wisedup, please stop the Bush/Hitler nonsense. It's not only silly, but also, as Matthew Cromer was nice enough to point out, counterproductive.

(Why is it silly? Because the US has just about nothing in common with Weimar Germany. If you think otherwise, you have no clue about history.)

One might be surprised from the quote that Bandow does not suggest that the libertarians should vote for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org . Of course, that might appear to be too simple and obvious to be acceptable. However, Badnarik takes the stands that Bush does not: pro-Peace, anti-Draft, anti-Deficit, anti-taxing and spending, pro-getting Uncle Sam out of your bedroom.

One might be surprised from the quote that Bandow does not suggest that the libertarians should vote for the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik http://www.badnarik.org . Of course, that might appear to be too simple and obvious to be acceptable. However, Badnarik takes the stands that Bush does not: pro-Peace, anti-Draft, anti-Deficit, anti-taxing and spending, pro-getting Uncle Sam out of your bedroom.

Bush isn't a conservative? Who would have thought. Bush isn't running on his abysmal record? Say it ain't so. Still waiting for the adults on the right (as delong likes to call them) to start openning their mouths loudly. OF course, I guess they need the country to actually be hell, instead of on its merry way their in a hand-basket, before they really start getting shrill.

I'm not sure what the significance of Salon is though. They have definitely posted opposition within the right before. They also do, a usually, decent job of summing up popular opinion on the right (Right Hook). Although, I guess it really is preaching to the converted --- I don't think another prominent right wing voice saying "Bush bad", in NRO or the Opinion Journal would really matter. People voting for Bush, really are voting on faith-based policies. Rationality is irrelevavnt to their decision. You would think a president who put 20 yr olds in charge of winning the peace in Iraq (and with their subsequent results) would be a scandal of such enormous proportions, that no one could possibly ever even consider voting for Bush, but obviously, that isn't the case.

People like MB, aren't going to change their opinion no matter what the evidence states on Bush's record in Iraq and the domestic economy-. They are just going to repeat some content-less rhetorical floursih, from a GOP talking point to reassure themselves that evidence doesn';t matter, because we are in an era of faith-based policy.

reply to qw and mc (I assume)
don't go all wobbly and emotional --get's you into all sorts of bother.

lets keep the argument to the economics.
create a constituency that needs feeding and it will be damned hard to shut down. That was my key argument. As to why the demand was created is unknown at present. As to where the trend will take us is also unknown.
As to the charge of counterproductive, doesn't that have you worried? Should be that there is no need for alarms as the majority should be expected to vote rationally.
The original thread was "the Cato dislikes Bush" --why? I'm not convinced that disputes over implementation details are sufficient to trigger the break.

reply to qw and mc (I assume)
don't go all wobbly and emotional --get's you into all sorts of bother.

lets keep the argument to the economics.
create a constituency that needs feeding and it will be damned hard to shut down. That was my key argument. As to why the demand was created is unknown at present. As to where the trend will take us is also unknown.
As to the charge of counterproductive, doesn't that have you worried? Should be that there is no need for alarms as the majority should be expected to vote rationally.
The original thread was "the Cato dislikes Bush" --why? I'm not convinced that disputes over implementation details are sufficient to trigger the break.

The American Right has always included a fair number of cranks and purists, insisting on returning to the gold standard or bemoaning the Interstate Highway System. Not that Cato or PJB fits that category, but their appeals to conservative purity encompass many from that crowd, creating a false impression of how many supporters they have.

America will elect a very conservative or very liberal president only by accident. A two-party system with primaries guarrantees that the nominees will always be a compromise and accommodation. I would personally love to have a president who read every issue of National Review and said "Let's do that." It aint a-gonna happen. Right now George Bush is the most conservative candidate who has a chance of winning. There's my vote.

I thought the whole idea of the big deficit was to create the big crisis and get rid of the social programs while fighting the wars. And out here in the least-known state our conservatives are against spending unless it's a project where they can get their hands on the money. Maybe that's where Cato is coming from?

Conservatives incensed by Bush's flouting of their principles might consider Ralph Nader's burgeoning antipathy toward Israel before protest-voting for him in November.

For those who believe you need to smash the china shop in order to save it -- er, eliminate the revenues before the government can spend them and deliberately engineer a fiscal crisis, I have this to say.

1. It is not morally acceptable to intentially create misery for millions on the basis of a premise that has almost no scientific merit.

2. If you think we are better off now than in the late 1990s from an economics standpoint and a limited government standpoint, you're smoking something seriously good that I want you to share with me.

3. What makes you think that a fiscal crisis is going to result in a Libertarian Disneyland? As remarkable as the 1930s were in turning FDR into a welfare state liberal and making America love him for it, the 1930s also sold Britain's Conservative Party on dirigiste industrial policy and laid the groundwork for the post war "cradle-to-grave" policies. I don't see any small government there.

4. There's a common thread to recent Republican administrations compared to Democratic ones -- tax cuts, runaway spending, and deficits. Sooner or later, voters get fed up and get rid of them as a result. The Dems' prescription is tax increases and spending cuts. Not only does this notion of cutting off government revenue have no scientific merit, no-one is going to allow the experiment to run its course.

5. And that's because we only live once, and we don't want to endure 20 years of misery for something that appears to be doomed to fail anyway.

It was Einstein (I think) who said "make everything as simple as possible but no simpler." The problem with many libertarians is that they err on the side of "simpler."

Libertarianism is another Utopian philosophy that looks great on paper, and from a great distance -- like Communism.

One amusing conversation game to play with Libertarians is bring up the flu epidemic of 1918, and ask how how a "legitimate" Libertarian society would respond to such crises.

Another one is to ask how a society with no 911 services, no Medic One, no state troopers, no municipal snowplows, and no municipally-coordinated trauma center response, would deal with things like a multi-car pileup with fatalities on a snowed-in highway.

One amusing conversation game to play with Libertarians is bring up the flu epidemic of 1918, and ask how how a "legitimate" Libertarian society would respond to such crises.

Good one, Casey. Very clever. You got 'em!

Here's another hi-larious question: Why don't you tell us what people who believe that you just outlined 75% of the legitimate functions of government, and are for minimum intrusion into personal freedom should self-identify as? What? Democrats With a Twist? Those One Guys who Don't Fit my Stupid Charicature, OMG WTF BBQ?

The essential problem with liberalism, as in communism and the Gingritch rebellion, is that they are all pie in the sky and don't take into consideration real people and how they act. Those who want to cut spending and decrease government, except in think tanks where they deal in dreams, never want their own programs cut, only those of others. The rancher wants an end to welfare but wants to keep wild animal control funds and low grazing prices. The environmentalist wants to keep Superfund money and clean air agencies while eliminating rancher programs. The social worker says a pox on both your causes, let's keep the social programs and cut the rest. And the construction contractor wants highway and other building programs but get rid of the rest.

We may be living, with television and sports, in our equivalent of the Roman bread and circuses. In many ways our country can be said to be becoming decadent with form replacing function in daily discourse. Entertainment is on the covers of most magazines in Barnes and Noble and Hastings and Borders as well as tabloids in supermarkets. What gives these people such value?

Doug Bandow has always had a bit of a problem keeping perspective. He thinks of himself as a conservative, albeit a libertarian one, and believes this gives him a good sense as to what motivates other self-described conservatives.

But among conservatives (and especially Republican ones) the most important motivators are distaste for liberals and enthusiasm for strong leaders, or at least for leaders who can be seen as strong. George W. Bush, who is detested by liberals and has dedicated his administration to projecting an image of himself as a strong leaders, is the ideal conservative for most of these people. Richard Nixon by this standard was absolutely a conservative; Ronald Reagan, if left to himself (remember "let Reagan be Reagan?") fit the bill nicely.

The elder Bush was a conservative during the 1988 campaign and during the crisis with Iraq, but as he drifted into 1992 he appeared weak. John McCain's problem, and to some extent Robert Dole's as well, is that they were much too friendly with people perceived as liberals, especially in the press. But, if either had managed somehow to get elected and had taken charge of the government the great majority of self-identified conservatives would have been in their corner much as they are now in Bush's.

This isn't to say most conservatives do not understand what conservatives are supposed to believe. It is rather to suggest that most of them -- like most other people -- do not follow the business of government that closely. They do not carry around an ideological checklist against which to compare any President's record. They line up behind a President, or occasionally a Presidential candidate, and their conservatism becomes largely what their leader says it should be. Only very large disruptions in what they expect from their President can jar them out of their support. Watergate was one such, of course, and the elder Bush's passivity between the end of Desert Storm and the 1992 election was another.

Now I personally am much more like Bandow than I am like most voters, conservative or otherwise. I follow public affairs closely, and have very firm ideas as to the right course to follow in most areas of public policy. The idea that someone like George W. Bush could serve an an ideological inspiration for me is not one I would ever entertain, quite apart from my distaste for him personally and for his father.

Yet I have no difficulty thinking of myself as a conservative. The relevant difference between me and Bandow is that I have no illusions as to how representative my views are of the views of other self-described conservatives. And, no, I am not considering voting for Ralph Nader, for anything, ever.

NGR: Do you think today’s youth can benefit from joining the National Guard, participating in that type of structured environment?

Bush: I think that many of today’s youth need to be in a structured, disciplined environment, one in which there is a sense of sacrifice in order to get ahead, one where you know you are a sum of a greater whole. I think that the Guard and the Army do a very good job at this. By the way, they also do a great job at addressing social issues, such as affirmative action; the Army model, and the Guard model, and the Air Force Model, of promotion from within, of allowing soldiers, regardless of their gender and/or ethnicity, to seek a level of competence. The Army and the Guard do a good job of what I call affirmative access, which is to educate, encourage, lift up soldiers of all walks of life - giving them a chance to realize their potential - which is a direct contrast with much of what else goes on in society. The military is not only a great place for discipline, and structure and sacrifice, but it is also a wonderful place for advancement and opportunity.

{..}

NGR: Do you think that the leaders of the next century are going to need any special characteristics that today’s leaders don’t have?

Bush: I think that in order for leaders to function in the military, the United States had better have a Commander in Chief that clearly defines the mission. And the mission is to fight and win wars. That is the primary mission. There is a little different mission for the Guard. It is to fight and win wars if called upon and to handle emergency situations if called upon. I am concerned about missions. The military is not a social organization. Therefore, to answer your question, if that is the mission then those who can lead will be those who can best fulfill the mission. Somehow we have a mixed message in today’s military. The key to a successful military is high morale, a sense of purpose, sense of mission, sense of accomplishment, and I suspect a sense of national pride. It is very difficult to have a sense of moral if there is a mixed message coming from the top.

More Insights on how Bush survived Vietnam and became a soldier of liberty:
George Bush's National Guard Interview

Oh, by the way, Bush is a Right-Wing Progressive/Hegelian, that's freakin' scary.

Ah, dylan; you're such a card.

So epidemiology is a legitimate area of governmental action? What a relief!

So, OK, suppose you tell me how epidemiological policies get implemented without the illegitimate areas of government action?

Where does the CDC/NIH get its case reports for statistical analysis? How does it know whether to trust them?

Who designs, processes, and distributes anti-flu vaccines?

How do we prevent profiteers and quacks from peddling counterfeit or useless remedies?

How do we determine: a) whether to charge for the vaccine; and b) how much to charge for the vaccine? Do we turn away people who can't afford it, as would be required by free-market capitalism?

How about shipping the vaccine overseas (if the outbreak is pandemic, not just epidemic)? Should we? If not, why not? If so, how? Via UNESCO? The WHO? The IRC? How do we coordinate this: who do we ship to, how do we ensure the vaccine gets to its desination? And again: who pays for it? Do we not ship to countries like Bangladesh or Ethiopia, because they can't possibly pay for it, even if that means large populations will not only die (which might not be our concern) but will also keep the pandemic going (which probably is a concern)?

How do we deal with the inevitable global economic repercussions if a 1918-style pandemic were to hit today?

How do we deal domestically with public panic? Food riots, riots to get the vaccines, lynchings, people stampeding out of stricken cities - all happened during the 1918 pandemic.

How do we house and feed people who've fled or been driven from their homes?

How do we get the communication, distribution, transportation, emergency medical response, civil control and supply networks up and running again, after they've been disbanded because they're not legitimate tax-funded things for the government to be doing? When do we start getting them up and running again: when the first few cases are reported, or only after we're sure it's an epidemic?

And, in a perfect world where we pay minimal taxes, how do we pay for all of this?

Well, I would be more convinced at this being widespread did not all the hard data and polls I saw show Bush with quite a high percentage of people favoring him saying that their vote was positive.

Daniel Bliss's argument that the "Dems prescription is... spending cuts" is certainly absurd. Kerry and the Dems have been proposing even higher spending than Bush... in fact, most of the economic analyses have shown that Kerry's plans would result in an even higher deficit, since the higher taxes wouldn't even cover the additional spending. Ditto too with things like the long-gone steel tariffs, where the entire line of attack from Kerry and other Democrats was that they weren't high enough and that they weren't left on.

Of course, one can fall back on the more solid ground of, "but of course he's lying," and "well, there's always hope for gridlock."

And of course there are certainly fewer regulations than under Democrats. Comparing the Federal Register's growth alone there is significantly slower growth under Bush than under Clinton. The FCC in particular would be worse under Kerry, presuming that he reappoints the current Democratic members and adds another similar ones. The current Democrat members favor both the obscenity charges and lots of regulation. (One in particular is a former aide of Sen. Fritz Hollings, which should give anyone pause.)

Divided government. That says enough on fiscal restraint.

More strong leadership displayed by Bush in Fallujah. c.f NYT or W.Post. I know, I know, WoT is the most important issue this year. Obviously the wingnuts are making the right choice in picking the flip-flopper who over-rules commanders on the gorund and creates absolute disaster stories.

Libertarians are wimps and they will act like the good little sheep they are and vote Bush.

No one fears the anger of these "rationalist" because they will always "rationally" follow the leader.

John Thacker wrote:

Daniel Bliss's argument that the "Dems prescription is... spending cuts" is certainly absurd. Kerry and the Dems have been proposing even higher spending than Bush... in fact, most of the economic analyses have shown that Kerry's plans would result in an even higher deficit, since the higher taxes wouldn't even cover the additional spending. Ditto too with things like the long-gone steel tariffs, where the entire line of attack from Kerry and other Democrats was that they weren't high enough and that they weren't left on.

Oh come on John, next thing you’ll be telling us that Kerry supported the steel tariffs while opposing the free trade agreements that Bush successfully completed and that Kerry and Edwards voted for the higher levels of spending (or wanted even higher levesl such as the $700-900 Billion alternative prescription drug benefit) that “conservatives” are bashing Bush for. Oh wait.

Of course, one can fall back on the more solid ground of, "but of course he's lying," and "well, there's always hope for gridlock."

Moreover there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory that “divided government” leads to less government as we had “divided government” for most of the first half of Bush’s first term which gave us higher levels of education spending, restoring agricultural subsidies, and the highest percentage increases in non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending which all occurred while we had a Democratic controlled Senate (something which could happen again in the future given how small the margin of control is). Moreover Bandow and the rest pushing this phony “divided government” meme have ignored how Democrats have been effective in using the filibuster in the Senate (which is why we have a Medicare prescription drug benefit that costs $534 Billion instead of the original $300 Billion).

Also we had “divided government” the last time we tried to reform Social Security in 1987(?) in which the Democratic controlled House killed any personal retirement option and we got stuck with a hike in the payroll tax (which is about the only “reform” Kerry has not ruled out). Considering the importance of fixing this problem before the baby boom generation begins to retire and gets “locked into” their benefits, anyone who is serious about reforming Social Security has to (a) want both Houses of Congress in control of pro-reform majorities (even more so in the Senate) and (b) a pro-reform President and like it or not, that’s Bush.

And of course there are certainly fewer regulations than under Democrats. Comparing the Federal Register's growth alone there is significantly slower growth under Bush than under Clinton. The FCC in particular would be worse under Kerry, presuming that he reappoints the current Democratic members and adds another similar ones. The current Democrat members favor both the obscenity charges and lots of regulation. (One in particular is a former aide of Sen. Fritz Hollings, which should give anyone pause.)

All I'm going to say to this is read Dinesh D'Souza's explantion about the shortcomings of libertarianism vs. conservatism in Letters to a Young Conservative.