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: 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: Marc Gallagher

Republicans displaying their “Red State pride” following the results of Tuesday’s elections need to face reality. The two GOP gubernatorial election victories in Virginia and New Jersey were unsurprising and expected. Now if a true limited government conservative beat out Bloomberg in the New York mayoral race there would be a reason for celebration.

The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.

The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.

What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:

America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.

After 8 years of Clinton, George W. Bush was the underdog. In 2004, Bush was still the underdog largely due to his perceived strength (however false it was) in fighting “those who attacked us on 9/11″. That quickly soured so much that by 2006 the Democratic Party was the underdog so they won control of Congress. If Bush was up for re-election himself in 2006, he’d have lost.

The 2008 election cemented the underdog theory with America getting the chance to elect the first African American President. McCain, largely a Bush twin, had no chance.

Tuesday’s election results demonstrated that the Republicans are now, once again, the underdogs. This bodes well for them in the 2010 election and it could carry over to the 2012 Presidential contest. Of course, that depends on who has the perceived power at that time.

The point of this “underdog theory” is that we are not happy with the blue nor the red team. When the time comes we just want to take away power from whichever team has it.

For liberty champions this eternal game is growing extremely tiresome.

When everyone buys into the two team league yet no one wants either team to finish in first place, isn’t it time to expand the league?

It just so happens that there is a liberty-loving team already in place ready to be added to the league. Here are their names:

• Rand Paul
• David Hedrick
• Adam Kokesh
• Peter Schiff
• Ray McBerry
• Chris Simcox
• Debbie Medina
• Bill Hunt
• RJ Harris
• John Dennis
• David Ratowitz
• Jake Towne
• Randy Brogdon
• Robert Broadus
• Collins Bailey
• Jaynee Germond
• Bob Parker
• Bill Connor
• Peg Luksik

These are the candidates being celebrated today on the anniversary of Ron Paul’s 5th of November money bomb. To learn more about these candidates please check out ThisNovember5th.com. If you find a candidate you like, then please don’t hesitate to support that candidate with a generous donation.

These are the real underdogs and outcasts. Let’s help make them winners and keep them winning.

by: David Boaz

Brink Lindsey described a “libertarian consensus that mixes the social freedom of the left with the economic freedom of the right” in his book The Age of Abundance. Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie said that right now is a “libertarian moment.” I saw a “civil liberties surge” in public opinion polls on marijuana laws and gay marriage. And now Jacob Weisberg foresees the imminent end to various kinds of prohibition in these United States:

Within 10 years, it seems a reasonable guess that Americans will travel freely to Cuba, that all states will recognize gay unions, and that few will retain criminal penalties for marijuana use by individuals. Whether or not Democrats retain control of Congress, whether or not Obama is re-elected, and whether they happen sooner or later than expected, these reforms are inevitable—not because politics has changed but because society has.

For good measure, he adds that we’re not going to prohibit either abortion or gun ownership. “Conservatives would be wise to give up on the one, liberals on the other. In each of these cases, popular demand for an individual right is simply too powerful to overcome.”

Sounds like libertarian heaven:

The chief reason these prohibitions are falling away is the evolving definition of the pursuit of happiness….

Republicans face a risk in resisting these new realities. Freedom is part of their brand; if the GOP remains the party of prohibition, it will increasingly alienate libertarian-leaners and the young. But the party as presently constituted has very little capacity to accept social change. Democrats face a danger in embracing cultural transformations too eagerly. Nearly four decades after George McGovern became known as the candidate of amnesty, abortion, and acid, cultural issues are still treacherous territory for them. Why get in front of change when you can follow from a safe distance and end up with the same result?

Of course, if the Democrats raise taxes and the deficit high enough, and do what they’re threatening to do to health care, marijuana may be the only medicine you don’t have to get on a waiting list for, but you won’t be able to afford it. And the marriage penalty may make everyone decide they can’t afford to get married. And flights to Cuba may be too expensive on our dwindling after-tax incomes.

by: Garry Reed

Immortality is just around the corner, right up the street, behind the Curb Your Dog sign. Or maybe it's a mere 20 years away. So says American scientist Ray Kurzweil in a Telegraph.co.uk article.

Advances under Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns" in such areas as genetic engineering and computer sciences and nanotechnologies will not only help our biological bits function longer but will make it possible to replace our vital organs. It seems that life-extending goodies like artificial pancreases and neural implants are already available.

"So we can look forward to a world where humans become cyborgs, with artificial limbs and organs," Kurzweail is quoted as saying.  Unless, of course, the Evangelical Right grabs the reins of government and forcibly puts an end to this blatantly evil science on the basis that immortality will prevent the Apocalypse and the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, which means that unrighteous evildoers must be Left Behind for the good of God's Plan (and for the good of people who call themselves True Believers who will certainly not kill themselves off.)

Unless, of course, the Green Left grabs the reins of government and forcibly puts an end to this blatantly evil science on the basis that immortality will create a population explosion and prevent environmental sustainability, which means that evil earth-destroying humans must be killed off for the good of Gaia (and for the good of people who call themselves Green who will certainly not kill themselves off.)

Unless, of course, some other arrogant self-appointed rabble of world-savers grabs the reins of government with the intention of saving the world by destroying it.

Libertarians, being non-authoritarian, being live-and-let-live, being voluntaryists, being believers in free will and individual liberty and personal responsibility and life-oriented and positive and rational (at least those descended from Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism) will mostly embrace and welcome the prospect of living forever.

But libertarians won't be grasping after the reins of government. That would be counterproductive seeing as how all governments are premised on coercion and therefore fundamentally destructive. Government doesn't enhance life, it demeans life.

Libertarians understand that free people freely exchanging ideas in a free market will discover and implement the actions necessary to overcome the problems of the evangelicals and the environmentalists and all the other authoritarian ideologues.

And then, if free people equipped with brainbots and biosynthetic colons and Rearden Steel hamstrings and micro-organo elastopolymer erectile extensions can figure out how to make a non-coercive non-government institution that does nothing but protect individual's rights and property, we can all re-elect Ron Paul for non-president in 2112.

Wanna live forever? Join the optimists. Join the libertarians.