http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygy0HbbKVM8

I agree that it’s important to live within the means of reality, and I believe that is exactly what I’m doing – and what others should do as well.  Scott Brown is nowhere near the ideal candidate. However, as I argued in another post, it isn’t only about electing the right candidates.  Because I live in reality and I know that many out there wouldn’t vote for a truly liberty-oriented candidate, I argue that rather than focus all of our efforts on electing the “right” candidate, we focus a good amount of our time on informing people and discussing the ideals of liberty.  If we choose not to do this and to simply continue trying to elect candidates, we will always be given choices like Scott Brown.  Not just in Massachusetts, but in other places as well.  I must admit that I don’t have much hope for Colorado in 2010, and the reason is because I don’t believe enough voters in the state truly believe in liberty.  And so long as that is the case, we will never have a truly pro-liberty man or woman in office.

Remember, it is about us! The people elect those in office.  And while those in office often try to lead the people where they want them to go, most will not be elected or get into office by going completely against an extreme majority in this country.  Therefore, I argue that we must spread the ideals of liberty to everyone and everywhere. And yes, Scott Brown being elected was no surprise, and I didn’t see it happening any other way.  He was elected, and we must understand that, but the goal must now be to showcase the example of Scott Brown, and to KEEP talking about this until we are able to get a liberty-oriented consensus in this country.  All lovers of liberty and freedom must take on the responsibility of selling the principles of liberty if they ever wish to have a better reality.

While myself and others recognized that Scott Brown was not a liberty-loving fellow and were expecting this kind of behavior, it hasn’t been seen that way across the country (until now, hopefully).  All most people knew was that he was running against a Democrat and he said he wouldn’t vote for Obama’s healthcare bill.  But did many listen when he mentioned he wouldn’t vote for it because he thought he could instead make it better?  

What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t be surprised by his vote to advance this bill.  His stance is that government can and should help people better their lives. He stated that he “…came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside and to do everything in [his] power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families.”  [emphasis mine]  If we wanted a truly liberty-oriented candidate who believes in the constitution, it would have been someone who would never claim that the government is the answer to our problems, rather that they are the problem themselves. Not only should the government not be in the business of bettering anyone’s lives, they are unable to! If you frequent the post office, DMV or pay any attention to politics whatsoever, it should have been clear long ago that the government does not run things well and should be limited to the strict confinements of the constitution. Scott Brown let us down by advancing government rather than diminishing it.

I am glad that Scott made his move when people were watching. All I can hope is that as a nation we are learning our lessons, and it seems that we are. I have been quite pleased with the outrage today by those on the “center-right”, and am happy to see that very few are sticking up for him. However, we still have a long way to go and cannot stop now.  For those of us who truly care about restoring liberty to this republic, there is plenty of hard work ahead.

But according to Hot Air, The Right Scoop and some others on the center-right, her campaign is now dead in the water.  Why is that? Because she did not give a yes or no answer to Glenn Beck when he asked, “Are you a 9/11 truther?”  Here was her response:

“I don’t have all the evidence there, Glenn,” Medina replied. “So I’m not in a place – I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there so I’ve not taken a position there.”

He then asked if she would disavow people on her campaign team that held such a theory.

“I’m certainly not into mind control or thought policing people,” Medina said. “I don’t see us having a team of radical individuals, if you will.”

I personally do not believe the government is smart enough or capable enough to have pulled off what many of the so-called “truthers” claim they have.  Although that’s not to say I’d put it past them.  I also think the “truthers” tend to scare people away from the liberty movement and detract from important things we should be talking more about, such as the need for having much less government.  But while Medina didn’t claim not to be a “9/11 truther”, she didn’t say she was one either.  And while she may not be the perfect candidate, she is definitely the best candidate in the race for Governor of Texas, by far.  Just take a look at her opposition.

Since the interview on Beck’s show this morning, she has since come out and tried to better explain herself:

When discussing the topic of compromise, Jon lambasted the Republicans for not appreciating Obama’s efforts when it came to tax cuts.  First he brought up the president’s stimulus plan, and how a third of it was in tax cuts.  He then went on to say he had expected the Republicans to applaud during the State of the Union when Obama mentioned that he had cut taxes for 95% of Americans.  He clearly assumes that they stayed seated because it was Obama up there, never mind if he was cutting taxes.  The fact is, he may be right.  I believe many of them would have stood up had it been John McCain announcing the same.  Either way, it’s ridiculous to think that anyone should have stood up to clap for these so-called “tax cuts”.

What many realized back in 2008 was that Obama’s claim that he would be cutting taxes for almost all Americans was just another way of saying “I’m going to spend, spend, spend”.  As this Wall Street Journal article points out, some have a different idea of what a tax cut is.  The way they see it, “…a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”"  I mean, how on earth can anyone say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans, when there aren’t even that many who pay taxes?  An article by CBS News brings up a study which finds only 43% of individuals pay taxes.  So if taxes are “cut” for 95%, what does that mean? Could it be that the so-called tax “cuts” are actually subsidies to those who don’t pay taxes?

No, Jon.  The Republicans should not have stood up and applauded Barack, nor should they have applauded if it was McCain doing something similar.  Rather than changing the subject, Bill should have discussed this issue further, and made sure it was understood by the audience (which most likely was made up of a good number of Democrats supporting Jon) that these so-called “tax cuts” were nothing of the sort.

As Sheldon Richman of FEE explains in his article Frustrating Michael Moore, the term capitalism (when used to refer to free markets) is not used correctly.  What Moore is discussing is what Richman refers to as “State Capitalism”, or what I have heard referred to as, “Crony Capitalism”.  He says that he’s right to denounce many of the things he does, including, “…banks engaging in wild speculation without concern for the risk, taxpayer bailouts for banks and other businesses, cozy relations between Wall Street and Washington, politicians getting favors from companies that want benefits from government, and big institutions pushing less powerful individuals around.” However, as Richman points out, this is not the free market as argued by Moore. Richman also brings up the point that many “free market advocates” claim that we live in a capitalist system (including George Bush), despite the massive amounts of regulation, spending and intervention that take place. When that is the case, are we really surprised when people like Moore confuse the term?

Michael Moore not only misrepresents the meaning of free market capitalism in his movie, but he also seems to misrepresent himself with his actions. As discovered by the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michael Moore’s movie qualified for a tax refund for the movie producers of up to 42% of their spending in the state. This of course comes at the expense of tax payers, whom Moore claims to fight for. According to Mackinac, “This lavish provision means a studio can easily receive more from Michigan taxpayers than it pays in Michigan taxes.” While Moore was at first against this, he soon became silent after he decided to go ahead with the movie. So much for “the little guy”.

This is what Obama had to say to George Bush after he took office last year.  While it’s depressing to have to hear a Democrat – let alone Obama – lecture a Republican president on overspending, what is even more distressing, is that there are those who still believe Obama when he says he won’t be (and isn’t) doing the same, times a thousand.  The idea that Obama represents a “change” from the last administration is simply not correct.  Last March, the Heritage Foundation posted comparisons of the Bush deficit vs. the Obama deficit.  They demonstrate the many ways Obama is continuing down the same path as his predecessor, although in a much quicker fashion.  It’s funny, because while many on the left have plenty of praise for Obama, they never seem to extend the same to Bush, who (same as Obama) encouraged increased spending on education, health care and anti-poverty programs.

Although there are plenty of criticisms to throw at Obama, I will have to save them for another post.  I recently came out with some bumper stickers which declare Bush is NOT a Free Market Capitalist, and would like to extend a further explanation.

Why should anyone care about George Bush?

There are many reasons why we should know the truth about the Bush presidency.  The first is that it’s important to understand history so we are not destined to repeat our mistakes. The problem, however, is that we already are.  And I believe the reason is that many in America (including myself) were not given all the facts when it came to American history.  (I witnessed it recently as a student teacher for a high school History class two years ago.)

In addition to Obama, there are also many similarities that exist between George Bush and Herbert Hoover; just not for the reasons many would think.  An article by the Center for American Progress compares the two presidents, claiming they were very much alike in that they, “[b]oth believed the market would naturally self-correct, and that government intervention would be harmful.” However, even Bush himself said, “I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” in addition to admitting, “I went against my free market instincts“.  The problem is that both Hoover and Bush claimed to be advocates of free markets while in office and afterward.  These claims distort the ideas of liberty and capitalism.  As Ilya Somin, assistant law professor at George Mason University states, “The greatest contribution Bush can now make to free market policies is to dispel the impression that he pursued them while in office.” I couldn’t agree more.

Dr. John David Lewis, author and visiting associate professor at Duke University, points out that this issue is also a matter of principle.  When conservatives or Republicans denounce Obama but either praise Bush or ignore his shortcomings, they are not doing liberty any favors.  In an article in the Objective Standard, Dr. Lewis writes,

“President Bush doubled the national budget, doubled the deficit, added a digit to the national debt, signed the largest entitlement bill since the 1960s, ordered his cabinet to cooperate in regulating carbon dioxide as a “pollutant,” signed Sarbanes-Oxley, distributed economic “stimulus” checks, asked for $700 billion as business handouts, and never vetoed a spending bill. Where were the protesters then? If Americans were agitated primarily by the trend toward statism, what stopped thousands of them from rising up and venting their anger at these actions? The truck toward statism is only part of the reason for the reaction against Obama. What is the rest of the explanation?

The answer begins with Bush’s party affiliation: He is a Republican. This title carries the appearance of long-standing, fundamental support for the free market and for capitalism.”

If we are to persuade others of the principles of free markets and limited government, we must do so in all circumstances.  That means denouncing Republicans when they deserve it.

Many instances throughout the Bush administration should have caused an uproar amongst any lover of liberty.  I personally did not pay enough attention to what was going on (and have since regretted it), so I do not fault others who made the same mistake.  But now that our country is facing the eradication of freedom and prosperity, I think it’s time that we all took a step back to take another look at recent history.  It’s the only way we can be sure not to repeat it, come 2012.

Attack on Free Trade – Tariffs

In an attempt to appease the American steel industry early in his presidency, Bush enacted tariffs on several types of steel, ranging from 8%-30%.  To add injury to insult Bush claimed that, “An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America’s industries and workers compete on a level playing field.“  So we show our commitment to free trade by severely hampering it?  We endorse free market policies because they work, and these tariffs proved not to. What Bush didn’t consider, was that by shutting out competition he was raising prices for consumers and businesses involved in manufacturing.  According to this article in American Daily, many economists believe the tariffs cost more jobs than they saved, due to the high costs imposed on manufacturers.  Only with the threat of a trade war did Bush decide to lift the steel tariffs.

Expansion in Medicare Coverage

George Bush presided over the largest expansion in medicare since its creation in 1965.  Although this medicare drug prescription benefit was originally given the price tag of $400 billion over a period of 10 years, the administration had to later admit that the price was actually closer to $1.2 trillion.  According to an article by James Bovard in Lewrockwell.com, four months after Bush signed the bill, the official board of Medicare trustees warned that, “Medicare’s finances have “taken a major turn for the worse.” Thanks in large part to the new law, Medicare is now forecast to go bankrupt seven years earlier than previous projections – in 2019, instead of 2026.”  Nonetheless, Bush gave this bill his utmost support and stated, “These reforms are the act of a vibrant and compassionate government.”

Massive Spending

According to a 2004 report by the Independent Institute, “Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.” In 2004 his administration was already overseeing the largest budget deficit in history, an estimated $520 billion.  While the president does not determine how much is to be spent, Bush not only resided over a Republican controlled congress at this time (you’d think he’d have some sway?) he also vetoed fewer bills than any president since Warren G. Harding.

According to Reason Magazine, between 2000-2005 the Department of Education’s budget had grown by “a stunning 79.9%.”  This was due in part to Bush’s beloved No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which dramatically increased the amount of spending and government authority over our public education system.  Additionally, it involved Ted Kennedy as a supporter who worked with the Bush administration on the bill.  That alone should make you nervous.  According to the Department of Education, the 2008 $24.2 billion price tag for NCLB was a 41% increase in spending on the program over FY 2001.  And according to this article by the Heritage Foundation, the past shows us that the increased amount of spending will not and cannot improve our education system.  Also see an article I posted on the Kansas City Experiment, which proves the same.

Increased Government Regulation

While many Democrats complain that there was a lack of regulation under Bush, they must not have heard of Sarbanes-Oxley.  Or of Bush’s failed attempts to regulate Freddie and Fannie in the early years of his presidency.  While some regulation by government is justifiable, much of it is not.  Especially Sarbanes-Oxley, which has been seen as a major blow to the private sector and to innovation and risk-taking.  According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “…the total annual costs for all public companies to comply with just the “internal controls” section of Sarbanes-Oxley is $35 billion per year, according to the American Electronics Association. And money isn’t the only cost. A single average public company also devotes 30,700 man-hours to compliance each year. That is money and time that could be devoted to developing new products, new businesses, and new jobs.”  Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus told Investor’s Business Daily in 2006 that Home Depot would have had a very hard time becoming as successful as it has with the increased legal and regulatory climate.  Marcus worries that public companies will be unable to make a decision “…without a lawyer on one side…and an accountant on the other…”

Federal Takeover of Fannie and Freddie

It is not only the Democrats who wish to lay claim to a legacy of helping people own their own home.  At a conference on minority home ownership in late 2002, George Bush declared, “I set an ambitious goal. It’s one that I believe we can achieve. It’s a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families.”  Doesn’t that sound nice.  Would you say we have 5.5 million new home owners today? Or would you argue, more correctly, that more people are having their lives turned upside down by foreclosure because they bought a house they couldn’t afford? Would you also make the point that responsible homeowners (and renters) are now picking up the tab for those who acted irresponsibly?  George Bush made the mistake of declaring it was the government’s job to help people own homes.  Some people cannot afford to own their own homes.  And while it is nice to have a home to call your own, it’s even nicer to know you are not in debt up to your eyeballs.

Many Republicans give Bush credit for his warnings, which declared Freddie and Fannie posed a risk to the financial sectors and needed more regulation.  However, I would not be one to congratulate his efforts.  Someone who truly believes in the free market and limited government would see the problem and call for privatization, not set taxpayers up to take the fall.  These institutions played a major role in the housing crisis in America.  The “government guarantee” has allowed them to do whatever it is they want without the risk, because someone else is set to pay for their mistakes.  This lengthy article by the CATO Institute discusses the case for privatization.

Despite the recommendations of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) which included, “…a two-year suspension of the capital gains tax, full privatization of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae “over a reasonable time period,” and a suspension of the “mark-to-market” regulations that forced banks to value assets at zero if they couldn’t be sold at that precise moment”, George Bush still went ahead and signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  The New York Times discussed some downfalls of the bill a week after it was signed.  They wrote, “Partly to accommodate the rescue plan for the mortgage companies, the bill raises the national debt ceiling to $10.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion. The bill also creates significant liabilities and risks for taxpayers, that are virtually impossible to calculate.”  Would a lover of free markets and liberty do something like that?

TARP & Stimulus

Whenever the Obama Administration is castigated for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, it’s important to remember that George Bush opened the floodgates and set the precedent.  Not to say that Obama would not have done the same without Bush doing so first, but to maintain our stance of a hands-off policy when it comes to our economic sector, we must treat all offenders the same.

Remember that $600 check you received in the spring of 2008?  That was meant to be what George Bush called a “booster shot” to the American economy.  However, many simply saved their government handout instead of spending it as the administration had hoped.

And how can we forget the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? This was how the government attempted to “save” the free market.  What they cannot figure out is that the free market has not been allowed to operate, due to  restrictions and damaging laws imposed by government.  Any free market advocate would allow the market to function, even if it resulted in a short term (or even longer term) economic recession.  This so-called economic stimulus took money from those who were responsible and/or successful and gave it to those who acted either irresponsibly or not up to par with customer standards. The constant “propping up” of the economy by the government (with taxpayer dollars) will eventually come to an end.  And when it does, the economic downturn that has been suppressed for many years will be much worse than necessary.  The Troubled Asset Relief Program, signed into law by George Bush in October of 2008, cost taxpayers $700 billion. But even worse, it created a dangerous precedent.

The famous quote from George Santayana states, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  If we don’t look back at the way things really were throughout history (including recent history), we will not only forget the past, we will have gotten it wrong.   And when that happens, we are most surely to repeat it.

I see an informed majority demanding real change in government as the only way to truly bring freedom back to America.  Legislators often do what the majority demands.  It is not as though many don’t want universal health care; the problem is that too many do.  And too many vote over and over again to tax and spend the money of the so-called “rich”.  The only way I see us ever getting on the course intended by our Founding Fathers is for liberty-minded folks to become the majority.  We need to inform people, and to encourage them to keep an open mind.  But we must first start with ourselves.  We, the lovers of freedom and justice, must keep our minds open and learn all we can.  To assume we know it all is a dangerous thought.  It makes us close our minds to new ideas and can dampen our efforts at influencing others.

We must be the advocates of freedom, and weave our fight into our daily routine.  Over dinner, drinks or casual conversation, we can mention (without malice) things others may not know and ask their opinion.  These ideas must get into everyday conversations around the country, and those who truly wish to defend our individual liberties must find a way to do so.

To help start the process of getting new ideas into the mainstream, Liberty on the Rocks has created (super cool) informational stickers.  These are the first two, and there will be more to follow.  They will eventually come in the form of t-shirts.  We hope this helps to get the conversation started, even if it only plays a small part.

By purchasing one or more stickers today, you will not only help to start the conversation by proudly displaying your stickers, but you will also help to fuel the nationwide Liberty on the Rocks movement.  All proceeds go to Liberty on the Rocks – both its educational efforts and the expansion of its social networks on a national scale.   Get yours today!

To order your sticker, simply send cash or check to:

Stickers are $5.00 a piece.  Please be sure to put in a short note listing the sticker(s) you want and your return address.

These stickers can also be purchased at the following Liberty on the Rocks meet-ups: Denver, Red Rocks and the Denver Tech Center.

*I use the word Libertarian because it’s the best way, in my opinion, to sum up the idea of an “advocate for liberty and justice”.  I am not for or against any party. I am an advocate of principle.

However, what concerned me (among other things) was his stance on the Massachusetts Health Care Reform plan that was passed under Governor Romney in 2006.  On his site he lets readers know, “In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.”  I don’t have a problem with his attention turning to controlling costs, but I can’t comprehend his support for the health care law. I honestly don’t see how anyone not completely outraged by that law can be a true lover of liberty.

In defending his stance on the 2006 law, he claims that although he does not agree with the current health care legislation, he does “…believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage…”.  That sounds to me as though he believes Americans have some sort of a right or claim to health care.  I very much disagree with this stance and I think it is part of the reason for the mess we (and especially residents of Massachusetts) are currently in.

Our rights as individuals include the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These are things which can be enjoyed by an individual without violating the rights of another. In the article Health Care Is Not A Right, Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute states, “Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people.” The bottom line is that these rights do not impose obligations onto others. As we all know, when obligations are imposed, an individual no longer has the right to life, liberty and happiness. If a group is able to force an individual to work for the purpose of their choosing, can we claim that they are truly living their own life and maintaining their liberty?  If not, what exactly should we call that?  Research by the Tax Foundation looks into how many days an American spends throughout the year working for the government (i.e. not for themselves).  For the last few years, most Americans have worked until sometime in April before they could celebrate their Tax Freedom Day – the day they are able to keep the fruits of their labor for themselves and their families.  If this isn’t considered forced labor, I’m not sure what is.

In addition to the morality of the issue, the Massachusetts Health Care Reform plan has been a tremendous failure.  While many claim that it has been a success that the Federal Government should look to for guidance, Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute, Michael Tanner, has to disagree.  His issue paper Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable: What the Failure of the “Massachusetts Model” Tells Us About Health Care Reform shows how, “…experience so far suggests that the “Massachusetts model” actually provides an object lesson in how not to reform health care. The program has failed even by its own goal criteria of achieving universal coverage. It has failed to restrain the growth in health care costs. And it has greatly exceeded its initial budget, placing new burdens on the state’s taxpayers.”

An article in the New York Times last summer announced that the Boston Medical Center was suing the State of Massachusetts, with the charge  that “its costly universal health care law is forcing the hospital to cover too much of the expense of caring for the poor.”  The NY Times reports that “State officials expressed surprise at the lawsuit, saying that Boston Medical received $1.5 billion in state funds in the past year and should not be seeking more in the midst of a fiscal crisis.” But who is seeking more? Is it not the legislature who keeps promising more and more programs and “freebies”?

When the government forces the hospital to pay to insure individuals of the state, there is no doubt there will be problems, and these will ultimately affect their patients. The hospital will either have to raise costs for those who can pay, lower care and/or service by cutting down on staff and/or equipment or perhaps even go out of business. It’s difficult to comprehend how anyone can think this situation is sustainable, or wise.

I am no doubt sick of what the Democrats are doing to this economy and our freedom and would like to see more congressman who will vote against devastating legislation such as Cap-and-Trade, but I am concerned about our future.  If our choices continue to be the lesser of two evils (see my past post on this), will we ever get freedom back in America?  I think eventually, we are going to have to take charge no matter who is in office, and I very much hope it is through peaceful means.

The admittedly unattractive statue placed in the city’s Capitol by Senegal’s President cost the people $27 million.  I would have to agree that it was a tremendous waste of money and people should be angry, including those at NPR.  However, it seems appropriate to point out that I haven’t heard many complaints from NPR when the same thing is done here in America.  The conservative estimate of unemployment is around 10% and our economy is clearly not doing well.  Yet the Federal Government just spent $133 million to give a Federal Building in Portland a “makeover”.  Where is the outcry?

Politicians like to leave legacies.  Most of them even want to be remembered for doing something good for the people.  President Wade figured he would bring tourism dollars to the country by erecting this statue.  In fact he hopes it will rival the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower as a destination hot spot.  But isn’t that similar to what many politicians in the U.S. do?  What about the $155 million spent on an “Earthpark” in Iowa?  Or the “Bridge to Nowhere” that would have received $320 million if it wasn’t for protests by taxpayers?

And what about the $100-$300 million dollar bribe Mary Landrieu accepted in exchange for her vote on the health care bill? She wouldn’t have normally voted for it, but because it rewarded her state when she did something against her judgment, it was well worth it.  Wouldn’t that be considered looking out for yourself (wanting to be re-elected) rather than the interests of the taxpayers?

I am all for pointing out when taxpayer dollars are squandered by politicians, but let’s make it fair.  If we’re going to complain about an African Presidents actions, then we can also pay attention to the actions of our own politicians, and point out when they waste our hard-earned tax dollars.  Such as giving President Wade in Senegal a $540 million dollar grant to reward and encourage “good governance.”  I think that deserves some complaints.  Wouldn’t you agree NPR?