by: The Humble Libertarian

I have a friend in Canada who sent me a message on Twitter asking about Mike Huckabee 2012. He said Huckabee was coming to his province for a speaking engagement and that he was being talked up really aggressively to libertarians there.

I'm glad he asked me so I can share the following information with you because a lot of people are asking and wondering: "Is Mike Huckabee a conservative? Is Mike Huckabee a progressive? Or could Mike Huckabee even be a libertarian??"

After following up with him very briefly to say that Huckabee is no friend to liberty, I sent him the following list of criticisms of Mike Huckabee based on his record as governor in Arkansas:

------------------------------
Here's a little more about Huckabee's record that worries me:

One of his first moves as governor of Arkansas in the 90s was to campaign hard for ballot Amendment 2 to increase the state sales tax to improve its park system, in essence, the destruction of private, productive capital to fund state projects.

He then moved to expand state spending by millions of dollars for medical entitlement programs and public schools, meanwhile signing a "faith-based initiatives"-style act that allowed religious organizations to contract to do social work for the state on the taxpayer's bill. While it may not be unconstitutional in a strict sense, I think such a policy is contrary to the principles of religious freedom.

Huckabee then made a highly politicized commutation of a convicted rapist's sentence, who then moved to Missouri and raped/killed a woman who lived near his home.

After being re-elected, he endorsed Lamar Alexander's exploratory bid for President in 1999 (a Republican Senator from my state who is extremely anti-Fed audit and who campaigned for Rand Paul's establishment opponent Trey Grayson at a DC fundraiser). Huckabee then changed his mind and endorsed George W. Bush- which I can forgive him for because at the time Bush was talking a lot like Ron Paul before going back on his word entirely as President.

Then Huckabee signed another tax increase on gasoline and diesel in 1999. He concurrently issued state bonds, which is just an IOU from the taxpayer to be paid in future taxes. At this time he also worked to establish a system of standardized state testing for students in Arkansas, and would remark years later during the Bush Administration that he strongly supported Bush's unprecedented and unconstitutional Federal takeover of education, No Child Left Behind.

In 2001, Hucakabee signed the Covenant Marriage Act, continuing the state's intrusion into the private institution of marriage, rather than working to reverse it.

In 2003, Huckabee mandated annual body mass index measurements for all public school children and tax increases on cigarettes and tobacco.

Then in 2005 Huckabee made illegal immigration a central issue, campaigning to make illegal immigrants eligible for state benefits like financial scholarships, calling opposition to his policy "un-Christian." He also apparently considers public drinking in entertainment districts un-Christian, because he vetoed a bill that would allow private citizens and businesses to make that decision for themselves.

The Club for Growth has called Mike Huckabee a "liberal" for fixing labor prices in Arkansas, opposing a repeal of the state sales tax on basic necessities like groceries, and being a tax hiker. And the libertarian Cato Institute gave Huckabee an F in its 2006 Fiscal Report Card. Perhaps the most telling endorsement Huckabee's received is being named one of the 5 best governors in 2005 by Time Magazine.

Huckabee is no friend to liberty!

by: Gary Reed

"Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it." – Mark Twain
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session" – Mark Twain

On November 6, The Market Oracle posted Robert Murphy's lengthy article, "Freaking Out over Global Warming," a review of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's book Super Freakonomics

The whole argument in the book and in the review seems to be centered on the science and economics of climate change.

Unfortunately, climate change isn't about science. Climate change quit being about science almost from the beginning.

Climate change is about raw, naked, unabashed political power.

Climate change isn't, and has never been, about economics either.

Proponents of raw, naked, unabashed political power don't care about science or about economics.

Originally, the climate changers began howling about the Coming Ice Age. First a frozen global hell was proclaimed, and then the proclaimers went looking for "science" to prove their proclamations. They had books to sell and interviews to do and power to accumulate and careers to build and reputations to make and egos to inflate.

When the time of the Coming Ice Age came and went and nothing froze over they turned the thermometer upside down. No more Coming Ice Age. Coming Global Warming.

But it still was never really science. The "scientific consensus" was built on scientific conjecture and flawed computer modeling and government bribe money and true believer's wishful thinking and the virulent human-hating of the environmental messiahs.

A "scientific consensus" is not science. "Consensus" is a political word. Politicians reach "Consensus." Scientists reach "factual conclusions" based on evidence, no matter what the politicians or the opportunists or the true believers want them to reach.

Cherry picking scientific data is not science. Cherry picking is political. Yes, the other side, the warming deniers, can also be charged with cherry picking evidence to prove that man-made climate change is bogus. But that just strengthens the argument; cherry picking, no matter who does it, or why it's done, is not science. It's still just politics.

Once any issue becomes politicized its no longer about that issue. It's then all about politics, and politics is always about power.

Government healthcare isn't about health, it's about power. The drug war isn't about drugs, it's about power. The government takeover of banking and lending institutions isn't about the economy, it's about power. Environmentalism isn't about the environment, it's about power.

Capitalism has won in every successful country in the world except in America where it's maligned and attacked and crippled. Our society, in ways it never should have been, has become deeply politicized, which means it's not about freedom and markets and trade and prosperity, it's about power.

And it's also why libertarians should be worried about the Libertarian Party. Is it really about libertarianism, or is it really just all about the Party?

The only way to ever know if anything is true about climate change is to totally divorce the science from everyone and everything that could possibly benefit from it in any way.

And it's also true about everything else that's been politicized.

Today we can merge Mark Twain's two amusing quotes:

"When power-mad politicians pretend they can do anything about the weather no man's life, liberty, or property is safe."

by: Thomas Craig

As a Libertarian-Republican, I am strongly opposed to almost every tax out there (especially the income tax).  While taxes are necessary to keep our Country functioning, they are too often imposed and way too high.  There is one tax that I do support, a "war surtax".  In the budding days of our Nation, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we implement a war surtax so that we know the financial cost of our actions, we don't bury ourselves in debt to pay for it, and most of all, so our Leaders are that much more motivated to end any war.  Jefferson wanted us to avoid war and the idea of a surtax would be a strong deterrent.  Unfortunately, Jefferson was not in the majority with this belief.  Skip forward over 200 years later and we find ourselves borrowing billions of dollars from our competitors and enemies to finance a war where the objective is becoming more and more blurred.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being paid for with borrowed money and that money is going to have to be paid back sooner or later.  Instead of sacrificing and paying for the wars with our money, we have chosen to sacrifice our children's economy. 

Rep. Obey (D-Wis) and Sen. Levin (D-MI) both have proposed legislation which would impose a tax on a percentage of your income (tax would vary from 2% for middle class and low income to 12-15% for high income) to help pay for the wars.  This is a logical idea and dramatically help the debt we are accumulating fighting these wars.  There is an alternative, however, and it is simply to end the wars and bring our troops back home.  It is perfectly acceptable to support the war effort and to support sending in reinforcements.  Keep in mind, however, that if President Obama sends the requested 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, it will cost an estimated $40 Billion according to the Office of Management and Budget. 

Is it worth the cost of human lives and if so, is it worth crippling our Nation under debt?

by: Trevor Bothwell

Only the government can give people back their own money and then claim that truthfully they do not deserve to keep all of it. And only a brainwashed people who has been taught that taxation is not theft would allow the government to get away with this. Thanks to an accounting "error", many taxpayers who received a tax credit last spring will have to repay the money.

More than 15 million taxpayers may owe the government $250 or more because of how the IRS last spring set up President Barack Obama's tax break that was designed to help consumers spend the U.S. economy out of recession.

Individuals with more than one job and married couples in which both spouses work may have to repay the government $400, either through a smaller tax refund or a larger tax bill, according to a report released Monday by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. Social Security recipients who also earn taxable wages may have to repay $250.

Perhaps this is why our government likes tax credits rather than flat tax cuts. An individual has a much higher chance of incorrectly filing a tax return given the red tape involved to claim a tax credit than a simply seeing a lower rate of tribute to extract from his earnings. Moreover, the red tape involved in creating a tax credit permits "errors" of this sort which then benefit the State.

by: Tad DeHaven

The U.S. Postal Service reported that it lost $3.8 billion last fiscal year and that it expects to lose $7.8 billion this year. The loss occurred despite cost-cutting measures and legislation that allowed the USPS to forgo $4 billion in required payments to pre-fund retiree health benefits.

From the Associated Press:

The post office has been struggling to cope with a decline in mail volume caused by the shift to the Internet as well as the recession that resulted in a drop in advertising and other mail. Total mail volume was 177.1 billion pieces, compared to 202.7 billion pieces in 2008, a decline of almost 13 percent. For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the agency had income of $68.1 billion, $6.8 billion less than in 2008. Expenditures were down $5.9 billion to $71.8 billion.

The recession and the rise in electronic communications are generating huge financial problems for the lumbering government monopoly. Despite its efforts to reduce headcount, the USPS remains overburdened by a costly and heavily unionized workforce. As I noted previously:

The average USPS worker earns $83,000 per year in compensation, which is considerably more than the average U.S. worker. And the Government Accountability Office recently noted that ‘compensation and benefits constitute close to 80 percent of USPS’s costs — a percentage that has remained similar over the years despite major advances in technology and the automation of postal operations.’

Radical reform is needed, but I suspect that Congress will just paper over the problems for now and also continue allowing the agency to defer funding its retirement obligations:

The post office is required to make an annual contribution of about $5 billion to pay in advance for medical benefits for future retirees. Congress reduced that by $4 billion for 2009, but that change was for one year only. The agency’s independent auditor, Ernst & Young, questioned whether the post office would have enough money to make the next payment on Sept. 30, 2010, when $5.5 billion will be due.

This will just kick the can down the road. It shows that even when Congress gets something right — as it did with making the USPS pre-fund its retiree health benefits — it lacks the will to see it through when the going gets tough. Meanwhile, the Europeans continue to make progress toward deregulating their national postal services and allowing for competition. Unfortunately, it seems that Congress only looks to Europe for guidance on expanding the welfare state.

by: Brian Doherty

Tim Cavanaugh was earlier riffing off the 9th amendment's multiple ideological uses; here's a report from the 10th Amendment Center on some recent action on the notion that the states and the people have some powers reserved to them from the Feds.

Excerpts:

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment.  Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement?  Kentucky.  Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”....

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.  And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

This sort of nullification of federal law by the states has some awkward history in America, and indeed a court fight is already on over the Firearms Freedom Act in Montana:

In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Radley Balko back in September on liberal horror of modern invocations of the 10th.

by Harrison Price

This story really gets me… the International Energy Agency says we’ll all have to pay more so people will feel more inclined to start driving hybrids (and doing other things, too):

The International Energy Agency has warned that the price of carbon credits will have to more than double from the levels they now trade at in Europe to make high-tech solutions to climate change economically attractive.

In its annual World Energy Outlook report released on Tuesday, the rich countries’ watchdog also warns that the world’s use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – will have to peak by the early 2020s.

Basically what they are saying is that there is no financial incentive for companies to rush forward investing in “alternative” energy because gas, oil, and natural gas are so cheap.  The way to “fix” this situation?  Well, it’s not market based that’s for sure… it’s the Carbon Tax.  The Carbon Tax (or Carbon Credits whatever you choose) is essentially a made up figure that says Country X can only release Y amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and if they want to release more than Y they will need to pay Z per ton.

Why the CO2 tax?  Call it the Liberal Consumption Tax or the “Global Warming” Fund:

In industrialised countries the price of carbon will need to reach $50 a tonne by 2020 and $110 by 2030. In developing countries the price of carbon would need to reach $30 a tonne by 2020 and $50 by 2030.

So, for example, these people want the United States to pay $50.00 per ton of CO2 whereas a “developing” country would only pay $30.00 per ton.  “Developed” countries were once “developing” ones that got to where they are by essentially industrializing and exporting their goods (steel, cars, airplanes, semi-conductors, etc…).  So already the IEA wants to place a $20.00 per ton of CO2 disadvantage on “developed” countries.  What do you think is going to happen to jobs?  They will go where it is cheaper to produce… namely “developing” countries.  And for the priviledge of “saving the planet” we will be paying to send our jobs overseas.

And people thought Republicans liked “offshoring.”

So just why should we do this insane thing?

The greatest responsibility lies with the US, but the greatest scope for change will be in China, which if it meets its own targets, will be responsible for more than a quarter of the emissions reductions the IEA says is needed to avoid the worst climate change risk.

Before we get into the absurd Liberal ideas about “global warming” we should note that in the entire world and all of the CO2 in it, humans create about 0.117% of the stuff.  CO2 is a naturally occuring substance.  Rotting leaves in your yard?  They produce CO2.  Birds breathing?  They create CO2.  Trees and plants at night?  They create CO2.

Back to this Carbon Tax thing.  So the IEA wants to see $50.00 per ton by 2020.  Currently in the EU CO2 trades at about $21.00.  These people know that all the “alternative” energy that’s produced loses money.  Solar, wind, geothermal… all lose money.  Solar and wind cannot be relied upon for power generation either as it is not always sunny nor is it always windy.  Yes, there are solar plants that use the sun to heat salt so it can release heat when there’s no sun but solar plants are not practical for most places as they require too much room and are one of the most expensive forms of energy we can generate.

So the “thinkers” at the IEA are trying to use “global warming” scare tactics to convince people to ship jobs overseas by raising the CO2 tax.  They are very happy the more expensive oil gets because they see their goals getting closer to reality:

Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, said at the launch of the agency’s annual flagship World Energy Outlook: “This would be a revolution. This revolution could only take place if there is a financial signal to the energy industry.” He added: “We need a deal in Copenhagen. We need a signal for the energy industry. Without that, nothing will move.”

Mr Birol said: “The era of cheap oil is over. We said it last year and continued to say it throughout the year even though oil went to $30 a barrel [at the end of 2008 and start of 2009].”

It is obvious the IEA is simply pushing whatever it needs to in order to convince countries to slit their own throats regarding jobs, manufacturing, and taxes by using whatever scare tactics it can, even when there is no clear science behind it:

The International Energy Agency warned today that the world’s use of fossil fuels will have to peak by 2020 if it is to escape a dangerous spike in global temperatures.

If the technology is that good, let it stand on its own two feet in the marketplace.  Interestinly enough, nuclear power is not mentioned… that is not trendy enough.

Below is a link to the NextTEN Budget Challenge.  Very interesting and worth taking.  I ended with a deficit of over $13 Trillion!  See if you can do better.

Just in case... the link address is www.federalbudgetchallenge.org/budget_challenge/sim/budget_master.html