It's Okay for the Government to Steal

The text below comes from a Libertarian Party communication From the Desk of Robert Kraus.

...if Congress gets its way, an unelected political appointee will soon have the power to solely decide what constitutes “excessive compensation” and forcibly confiscate it.

I’m talking about the so-called “Pay for Performance Act.”

Sponsored by Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson, it gives the Treasury Secretary
unprecedented powers to confiscate the pay of ANY employee at ANY company that
received bailout funds if he thinks they didn’t really earn it – even if the compensation was required by a legal contract.

If it passes, the federal government would have the power to forcibly dictate the salaries of millions of private employees.

It’s another step towards the “maximum wage” law many socialists have been demanding for years.

And it doesn’t define what unearned pay actually is. It gives Tim Geithner, a man who decided to exempt himself from taxes, sole power to write whatever rules he pleases.

It also applies to ANY employee, not just a manager or someone who lost money. If you do ANY work for ANY company that accepted funds – even if you were a profitable employee who did everything right – the government would have the power to steal your paycheck from you.

And it’s retroactive, allowing the Treasury Secretary to use force against people for doing something that was perfectly legal at the time and required by contract.

The Soviet Union didn’t even allow its agents to do that to its citizens!

Now, no one should be getting rich off the taxpayer, but if allowing unelected bureaucrats unchecked authority to steal paychecks with no standard or procedure isn’t scary, I don’t know what is.

Giving the Executive Branch unchecked, uncontrolled and unconstitutional powers was a bad idea under the Bush administration, and it’s still a bad idea under Obama.

And this kind of federal power grab – allowing the Treasury Secretary to invent his own rules and steal paychecks from even profitable and low-level employees for any reason whatsoever – is exactly what the Libertarian Party was founded to fight.

Again, no one’s arguing that incompetent managers should be entitled to taxpayer cash. But this bill would hand an unelected bureaucrat undefined and uncontrolled powers to override legal contracts and decide for himself what private citizens should earn.

It’s another frightening step towards a totally nationalized economy.

This so-called “Pay for Performance Act” is nothing more than another step towards a virtual “national salary cap.”

EVERYONE is at risk.

Please fight back today.

Yours in liberty,

Robert Kraus

Acting Executive Director, Libertarian National Committee

I am amazed by the lack of uproar across our country at how powerful our government continues to grow. These are scary times, and with each baby step our government is taking, it gets more and more frightening.

Where is the outrage?!!


Questioning Politics

"Alternative" Political Parties

The following is an excerpt from the Monday Message mass email from the Libertarian Party dated February 23, 2009. My hope is that someday the general population will realize that there is a political party that more closely follows their own viewpoints than do the Republican and Democratic parties. We have a choice that extends beyond those two overly powerful parties. Learn about these "alternative" parties and make a more informed choice.

Backed by a growing swing vote that decides elections and support for its economic plans, the Libertarian Party is not an “alternative” political party. “Alternative” implies something outside the mainstream or an unconventional choice. The Libertarian Party, with its sensible balance of fiscal responsibility and social moderation, is, in fact, the nation’s only mainstream political party.In a nation where a vast swath of the electorate define themselves as generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal, it is the Democrat, Republican, Constitution and Green parties that find themselves isolated on the extreme left and right. Not only are these the voters who decide elections, poll after poll finds these voters generally agree more with the Libertarian Party than any other.

In their 2006 study of the American electorate, The Libertarian Vote, Cato Institute scholars David Boaz and David Kirby find between ten and twenty percent of the electorate is generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal – in other words, libertarian. A 2006 Gallup Governance Survey puts the “libertarian” vote at 21 percent, tied with the “liberal” vote and behind only the “conservative” vote at 25 percent.

That growing libertarian vote is getting close to the same percentage as those describing themselves and liberal or conservative and large enough to assemble a
winning coalition in election races. Many of the “unaffiliated” or “non-ideological” voters agree more with libertarians than with conservatives or liberals.

Much of the blame lies with ballot access laws placing an intolerable burden on citizens who wish to vote for something other than Republicans or Democrats. The Libertarian Party is hard at work in state legislatures across the country changing those laws.

Those same polls show majorities support the libertarian solution of reducing the size and government and expanding regulatory and tax relief for employers. They know it does more to create jobs and renew faith in the economy than spending $30 million on the “salt marsh mouse,” as Democrats propose, or spending $700 billion bailing out unsuccessful businesses and trillions more expanding government, as the past big-spending Republican administration and Congress did.

I am a registered Libertarian. I am strongly fiscally conservative. I am only moderate on social issues. If I were not a Libertarian, I would most likely be a Constitutionalist. For those of you who are both fiscally and socially conservative, I would strongly suggest checking that party out.

The point is...you don't have to settle for the lesser of two evils.


Questioning Politics

Libertarians and Israel

The following is a mass e-mailing from the Libertarian party dated Jan. 5, 2009. I fully support the viewpoint held by the Libertarian Party on this issue. I don't understand what we have to gain by supporting Israel when there are many issues that ought to be addressed within our own borders that to me seem much more pressing. Enjoy.

Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:

Since its creation as a Jewish state in the late 1940s, Israel has been one of the main sources of tension and unrest in the Middle East. Now, more than 50 years later, Israel once again finds itself at odds with its Palestinian neighbors, forcing the hand of the United States to show where it stands on one of the most polarizing issues in modern history.

The tension between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East goes back thousands of years, and there is no easy solution to the issues in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. Many U.S. presidential administrations have tried to act as brokers of power or arbiters of peace without any success. Libertarians aren't foolish enough to think we have the answer to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. However, we do realize that steps can be taken by the United States to remove itself from injury in the conflict, and perhaps begin the process of long-term stability in the region. The biggest of these steps is to eliminate all economic and military aid to Israel and all other foreign countries. It's the general opinion of Libertarians that as far as the U.S. government should be involved, Israel should look out for its interests so long as its actions are not subsidized by the American taxpayer and Israel does not look to the U.S. for assistance. However, because Israel is the top recipient of foreign aid (aside from Iraq), it is reasonable to assume that some of the money given to it by the United States in foreign aid is used to either directly or indirectly support Israeli military operations.

Therein lies the problem.

There are several complications with U.S. foreign aid going to Israel. One, it makes the United States culpable for the actions of Israel that many times come with international condemnation. Secondly, it opens up the United States to cries of extreme bias in favor of Israel—a main catalyst for terrorism against U.S. interests at home and abroad.Critics of removing foreign aid from Israel cite that this is the United States turning its back on a staunch ally. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. The United States is not "giving up" on Israel by removing foreign aid as much as it is adhering to a principle of non-intervention—in Israel and across the world as well. Israel will still be a trading partner with the United States, and will benefit greatly from this trade. Additionally, Israel has a strong and effective military along with nuclear arms to deter aggression.

The United States' top priority needs to be the United States, and our billions of dollars of foreign aid to Israel have hurt our national security and international standing. "Contrary to the warnings of the do-something buffs, U.S. interventions in the Middle East have likely unleashed more anti-American terrorism and more pressure on energy markets than they have prevented," says Leon Hadar, a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. In essence, the interests of Israel are not always those of the United States. However, it is not an analysis of what we have gotten in return from our relationship with Israel as it is an adherence to the principle of non-intervention. There is great wisdom in remaining disconnected from the problems facing other nations, especially when these problems are complicated and have negative consequences for getting involved. At issue for Libertarians in the current situation with Israel and Palestine is not so much who is right or wrong, but whether the United States should continue to support other countries with foreign aid. Libertarians may all feel differently on whether Israel is "justified" in invading Gaza, but Libertarians all agree that taxpayer-subsidized foreign aid to other countries is bad for business and bad for peace.

Treating Israel like any other country is not abandoning an ally, but freeing the United States from a cumbersome relationship of the likes George Washington, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson all warned against hundreds of years ago. In the words of Jefferson, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Live free,

Andrew Davis
Director of Communications
Libertarian Party

Questioning Politics

Libertarian Party on Obama's Bailout

The following was a mass email I received from the Libertarian Party last month regarding Obama's proposed stimulus package. It's an interesting read.

Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:

Well, we didn't actually go to Harvard.

In doing some background research on Obama's plans for the biggest public works project since the 1950s, we talked to Harvard economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron about what this means for the economy. Here's what he said:

LP: Does it make much sense, in terms of stimulating the economy, for the government to invest in public works programs that, when built, produces nothing further?

Miron: Overall, no. The argument is that the beneficial effects of stimulus on overall activity are worthwhile, even if from a microeconomic consideration the projects to not make good cost/benefit sense. Thus, in the extreme form, the standard Keynesian position would say it makes sense to have the government hire people to dig ditches and fill them back up.
The theory that underlies this view is not stupid, but not compelling either.
At a minimum, any stimulus should be on things we would want even if they were not needed for a stimulus. I am personally not persuaded there are many things in that category given the levels of current spending.

LP: Is there a high chance of damage to the economy by implementing a public works program such as that proposed by Obama?

M: There is certainly the possibility of adverse effects. New programs tend to last and have bad effects on incentives and efficiency.

LP: What do you predict to happen should Obama's proposal be implemented?

M: I think the economy will recover in 6-12 months, with or without the stimulus.

LP: Is the best prescription for economic recovery keeping the government out of the economy?

M: In my view, yes.

Miron brings up a great point about the lasting effects of new government programs. In fact, it was program of the New Deal that was at the center of the latest economic troubles: Fannie Mae.

Additionally, the idea that government can, quite literally, dig itself out of this current economic trough is patently absurd. In doing so, the government often makes things much worse for the economy. You might say that the government pays to dig its own grave--or, at least one for the taxpayers.

There are several major problems with Obama's public works plan, aside form the fact that government is making a mistake by even trying to take a hands-on role in the market.

Cost/Benefit Ratio - It is not a guarantee that construction projects will continue to bring any economic benefit upon completion, and "building for the sake of building"--as is Obama's objective--is an invitation for wholesale government waste. This is like what Miron referred to as "government hir[ing] people to dig ditches and fill them back up." Public works projects that benefit the economy more than the cost of production may be pursued for this reason (at least by those that agree with government intervention, as clearly the Libertarian Party does not); however, no public works program should be undertaken for the sake of simply creating jobs. Some economists, like Economic historian Price Fishback, predict that "such public-works spending would crowd out a significant amount of private construction," on top of being a waste of taxpayer money.

Limited Scope - Public works programs benefit one specific industry, and even a smaller amount of those in that industry. Not every construction firm is able to handle the renovations of a bridge, or the construction of a new school. Most of those that would benefit from a large-scale public works program would be large and specialized firms. As such, a construction-based stimulus would have no demonstrative benefit outside of the construction industry. These types of plans "suffer from a common problem–they will end up generating employment for highly specialized businesses and workers, rather than stimulating economic activity more broadly," says economists Susan Woodward and Robert Hall. "Thus a program that funnels money to construction firms and their workers mainly raises their incomes and employment levels and has relatively little effect elsewhere."

Too Slow For Impact - One main element of any economic stimulus plan is rapid and immediate relief. Relief plans that take too long to implement often kick-in after they are needed. This is a major complaint with most stimulus packages that are proposed, and large-scale public works programs are one the best examples of this delay. Many of these projects will take too long to get from legislation, to planning, to approval, and finally to the actual construction phase in order to have their intended impact. What we will eventually have is massive construction spending during a time where an economic stimulus is not needed.

Magic Money - One of the oft cited objections with Bush's economic policies was his penchant for massive government spending without any plans to offset this spending with cuts in other areas. As a result, trillions have been added to an already exploding national debt. A huge problem with Obama's public works program is that it will add at least $700 billion (and most likely more, in the end) to our national debt, and Obama has stated no plans on how he hopes to address the deficit. Most Keynesians will overlook this fiscal imbalance, but when the spending appears to have no real economic benefit (should it fail the already-established cost/benefit test), then Keynesians must even wonder if there is a point to the spending.

Overall, the moral of the story is this: Obama's public works plans carry no attestable benefit, and much unknown risk. On top of this, there are several other better options for economic recovery...like keeping government out of the economy altogether, and letting it work itself out.
In this economic crisis, the best options for economic stimulus are ones of less government action--not more government action. If government wishes to do anything, we suggest it simply cut taxes. Tax cuts are always a good thing, and their economic impact much more proven.
This way, taxpayers benefit, the economy rebounds and government still gets that warm-fuzzy feeling inside like it did something good.

Live free,

Andrew Davis

Director of Communications
Libertarian Party