Chuck Moulton: Open Letter to Gary Johnson on the "Fair" Tax

I'm not going to post the whole letter here -- you can read it at Independent Political Report. And you should. As a teaser, here's the opening:

Main libertarian objections to the Fair Tax:
1. The prebate would start a new welfare entitlement.
2. The transition would redistribute from savers to borrowers.
3. There is a danger of getting BOTH an income AND a consumption tax.
4. Advocates disingenuously quote a 23% rate when it is actually 30%.
5. Advocates use protectionist rhetoric to sway populists.

Also well worth a read is Jason Gonella's open letter to Johnson, which covers some other issues.

And two pieces on the "Fair" Tax by LP presidential nomination candidate R. Lee Wrights (here and here).

And finally, while I don't by any means claim to be "the father of libertarian opposition to the 'Fair' Tax,'" I can claim to have done a bit of writing on it long before it became a football in the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination process -- see here and here.

You Can Write It Down

US Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is now US Senate candidate Lisa Murkowski (IWR-AK). The "IWR" is for "Independent Write-In."

This could get interesting, in a horse-race cum train-wreck kind of way.

According to Wikipedia's article on write-ins, Strom Thurmond is the only US Senator ever elected as a write-in candidate.^*

Could Murkowski become the second?

She's got a $1.5 million war chest. She won't be getting any more money from the national GOP. That doesn't mean she won't be getting any more money, but let's assume for the moment she's raised most of what she's going to have.

In 2008 -- a presidential year with an Alaskan on the GOP's national ticket, so probably high turnout -- about 320,000 votes were cast for US Senator. Let's guess the turnout at 300k for this November. It's a nice, round number and it's probably in the ballpark, maybe even a little high.

Can Murkowski snag 150,000 votes -- 50% -- if she spends $10 per vote? How about a 40% plurality (120,000 votes) at $12.50 a pop?

Here's a rough-in:

$400k for media -- radio, TV, newspaper, Internet.

If she has a good voter list and voter ID op, she can get out three mailers (the last one a sample ballot with a sticker to put on the real ballot if Alaska uses paper ballots) @ $2 each to the right 150,000 voters for $900k.

That leaves $100k, or about $230 for each of Alaska's 438 precincts, for Election Day signs and volunteer-distributed sample ballots/stickers.

And a final $100k for sundry expenses -- staff salaries, travel around Alaska to kiss hands and shake babies, etc.

That's if she doesn't raise another dime. I bet she'll raise quite a bit. If you were a corporate lobbyist how much would you pay to elect a US Senator beholden to you and not subject to edicts from "party leadership?" Those guys throw money at winners and losers. You don't have to be a sure thing to get their bucks, you just have to have decent odds, and Murkowski has better odds than many candidates.

Right now the polling makes it look like a Miller/Murkowski fight, but don't count on it staying that way. A month ago, it was a safe Republican seat. As of now the Democrats would be stupid not to throw some money into the mix and go for a surprise Senate pickup.

I don't know if Murkowski can win it, but she can sure as hell affect it.

-----
* Of course, US Senators weren't elected by popular vote until after ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 ... but prior to adoption of the "Australian ballot" in the late 19th century, a reasonable case could be made that all popularly elected officials, including US Representatives and presidential electors, were elected by "write-in." Most voters used pre-printed ballots given them by their parties of preference, but there was nothing to stop you from writing your ballot out by hand, and there were no government-printed ballots or rules for being "on the ballot."

Dammit ... foiled again

I was secretly rooting for JD Hayworth in today's Arizona primary for the Republican Party's US Senate nomination.

No, I'm not a Republican.

No, I don't live in Arizona.

No, I'm not even particularly enamored of electoral politics any more.

I just happen to think that the GOP accelerating through the S-curve on its course toward institutional suicide by sending the wildest big-government whack-job west of the Pecos back to DC would make great television for the next two years or so (I can't imagine the crazy SOB making it for the full six years without ending up in prison, or at least out of office and guesting on Jerry Springer), that's all.

Instead, GOP voters stuck with Old Reliable (read: Boring as watching paint dry) John McCain, by landslide numbers reflecting a collective IQ a full order of magnitude higher than I'd have predicted.

The Other McCain is as disappointed as I am but for very different reasons (I have to write his affection for Hayworth off to Moonie brainwashing during his tenure at the Washington Times or some other similarly malign influence). One thing we do agree on is that there's only candidate left worth voting for (if you must) in that race.

Thoughts on being the GOP's bitch

Stacy, you ignorant slut:

When the Libertarians have nerds like George Phillies, stoners like Steve Kubby and fanatical purists like Mary Ruwart seeking the presidential nomination, and when the party's 2008 convention requires six ballots to decide Barr is the better candidate, you can't be blamed for wondering if they're really serious about politics.

I have to agree ... sort of. The fact that Barr wasn't eliminated by the second or third ballot reflected poorly on the Libertarian Party and indicated that maybe we weren't really serious.

Let me break this down for you:

Bob Barr was retired from Congress as a Republican in 2002. And not just any kind of Republican, but a mossback social conservative with a righteous hard-on against anything and everything remotely libertarian -- a hardcore drug warrior who moved to stop the votes from being counted on a DC medical marijuana initiative; author of the Defense [sic] of Marriage Act; Hammer of Heresy Among Military Personnel; supporter of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq.

But by 2008, after a magical transformation that included a gig with the ACLU, he was running for President of the United States as a Libertarian.

Let's paste that math on another political name or two and see how it works:

Like Barr, Texas Republican Tom DeLay left Congress in an off-year (2006). Like Barr, DeLay was not just a Republican, but an uber-Republican, loved by his party (Barr's 2002 defeat was due to redistricting which put him up against another popular incumbent in the primary -- unless you want to ascribe it to the anti-Barr ads run by, you guessed it, the Libertarian Party) and loathed by all others. If he reports for duty at MoveOn tomorrow and runs for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2012, or even 2016, the question is not whether he'll make it to the sixth ballot, it's whether he'll make it six feet into the convention hall before getting bounced out on his ass. And I guaran-goddamn-tee that Robert Stacy McCain won't accuse the Democrats of not being "really serious about politics" over it.

How about Hillary Clinton? She left the US Senate in 2009. Maybe she'll quit her current gig tomorrow and go to work as a receptionist at Gun Owners of America, while volunteering on the side at the America Conservative Union. Think she can pull down the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016? Or, to put the question a different way, are you high?

Better yet, what about the Libertarian Party's nomination? Would McCain suggest that the LP was not "serious" if it rejected, or at least took its time mulling over, a hypothetical Hillary Clinton candidacy on the LP ticket? Even if she spent a couple of years as a Cato fellow first?

Non-LPers are always bellyaching that the LP isn't "serious" if it doesn't act like the "major" parties -- but I've yet to see a "major" party nominate one of its most vociferous recent opponents for election to the presidency on its ticket, or a pundit seriously suggest that it do so. The closest thing I can think of was the speculation that John McCain might choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate -- a notion which The Other McCain called "probably farfetched" at the time.

And what, pray tell, did we get out of the Barr nomination? Dixiecrat vaudeville -- a campaign which McCain himself trumpeted as the resurrection of George Wallace, and which turned in the fourth-best results (as a percentage of the vote total) of the Libertarian Party's ten presidential outings. Our reward for taking a flier and running a conservative instead of a libertarian was middle-of-the-pack performance at the polls and incalculable damage to our reputation as a party with principles we weren't willing to sell for a mess of ... well, let's just note that it was a mess and leave it at that.

We got used as an overflow area for disgruntled Republicans who didn't think John McCain was "conservative" enough, in an election which every Republican with two or more neurons firing knew was a lost cause. Which, when push came to shove, didn't amount to enough people to fill a phone booth.

The Libertarian Party has a tougher row to hoe than the major parties do in the first place. Allowing ourselves to be made into the GOP's bitch at the presidential level for an entire election cycle was a detour from, not a shortcut to, where we want to go.

Update, 08/08/09: The Other McCain responds. I'll probably respond in turn (there are several points I'd like to discuss), but it may not be today, so I thought I'd get the link in.

Libertarians: Time to get serious about justice for torturers

Original at the Center for Libertarian Press Information:

President Barack Obama entered the Oval Office brandishing promises to close the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, shut down CIA "black sites" around the world, and bring cleansing sunlight to bear on human rights abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration in the name of a "Global War On Terror." On Friday, Libertarians called on Obama to quit stalling and get with the program.

"Every time it looks like justice will make it out of the woods, Obama falls off the wagon," says Starchild, coordinator of the national activist group Grassroots Libertarians. "Less than four months into his presidency, we're back to kangaroo courts at Gitmo, covering up crimes with a constitutionally baseless state secrets doctrine, and hiding evidence by deeming it 'classified.'"

Earlier this week, President Obama reneged on his administration's pledge to publicly release photos depicting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday, after months of stalling on closure of Guantanamo Bay, he announced a return to the policy of trying terror cases by military commission instead of in the courts, as required by the Constitution. Obama's White House has repeatedly sandbagged even his own party's efforts to prosecute, or even expose, those responsible for the previous administration's policy of torturing prisoners.

The Libertarian Party's platform holds that "the Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law."

To Marc Montoni, secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, Obama's policy shifts smell of politics as usual. "America voted for change we could believe in," he says. "What we're seeing so far looks more like Bush's third term."

Contact: Thomas L. Knapp | media@clipr.info | 314-721-3960
PRLog release version w/PDF: Click here

That swirling sound you hear ...

... is Bob Barr's presidential campaign circling the drain of history.

Brief recap:

Barr was scheduled to appear with Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader at a press conference yesterday to endorse a joint four-point issues statement on which all these candidates (and Boston Tea Party candidate Charles Jay) agree.

At the last minute, Barr canceled, with campaign manager Russ Verney allegedly giving as the excuse "it just isn't worth it." When a Campaign For Liberty official, Don Rasmussen, asked Barr campaign deputy director Shane Cory what was up with that, he alleges that Cory's reply was "go f**k yourself." Barr then held his own press conference, grandstanding on Paul's name with an offer of the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential slot, while Verney, the campaign, and LPHQ spun like mad about how this "demonstrates Barr's leadership" and how Barr would be lowered by appearing on stage with someone "like" Cynthia McKinney. Over the last 24 hours, the Barr campaign has continued to run smack on Paul.

Now for a brief digression, just to make things crystal clear: Nobody with two or more functioning neurons is going to accuse me of being a Paul sycophant. I opposed his GOP presidential campaign and believe it did significant damage to the libertarian movement (the newsletter scandal, the pork-mongering, the anti-gay and anti-immigrant BS, etc.). If you don't believe me, Google "Ron Paul" and this blog's URL.

But that doesn't matter, for three reasons:

- One of the major premises and promises of the Barr campaign -- from well before his announcement that he was considering running, going at least back to his sponsorship of a motion on the Libertarian National Committee asking Paul to seek the LP's nomination -- was that Barr would appeal to the Paul voter and supporter bloc. No need to belabor that. Read the history. It's all there in the search engines.

Hint: You don't deliver a voter bloc by monkeywrenching that bloc's hero's event, trying to upstage him, telling his supporters to "go f**k themselves," claiming you're too big and important to appear on a stage with him and other presidential candidates, then talking about him like he's a fool and a knave out of one side of your mouth while offering him the second fiddle position in your own failing effort out of the other, all the while blowing about how this bundle of nonsense constitutes "leadership."

- Secondly, Barr's delusions of grandeur and absurd strategies aside, Barr isn't just a presidential candidate, he's the presidential candidate of a party, the Libertarian Party. That party has longstanding ties to Ron Paul, who was its 1988 presidential nominee. At one point, polling indicated that more than seven of every 10 LP members wanted to run Paul on the LP ticket again this year. Whether I liked it or not -- and often I didn't -- Libertarians across the country put gallons of sweat into building bridges with the Paul movement over the last 18 months. I don't know if Barr has succeeded in burning those bridges with his antics yet or not ... but make no mistake about it, he's poured gasoline on those bridges and he's capering around them with a Zippo^® in one hand, a can of accelerant in the other, and a deranged grin on his face.

- Thirdly, the Paul press conference was a no-brainer. It was a major media opportunity with no down side. It was a cake walk. All Barr had to do was stand on a stage with four other people, at least two of whom are more famous and well-thought-of by the public than he'll ever be, smile and say nice things about an issues statement that every last freedom-loving American can wholeheartedly sign on to, and watch the money and votes roll in. It was seemingly impossible to screw this up. But -- wouldn't you know it? -- the Barr campaign found a way to turn a cake walk into a fiasco, just like his old party seems to do every time.

The Barr campaign broke its promise to try to deliver the Paul voter bloc yesterday. The Barr campaign created a major schism between the Libertarian Party on one hand, and a major ally of the LP and his supporters on the other, yesterday. And the Barr campaign demonstrated the most mind-blowingly blind level of incompetence and inability to discern opportunities to even promote its own candidate yesterday.

And they don't seem inclined to even try to stop the bleeding.

The Libertarian National Committee needs to issue an abject, no-exceptions, no-excuses apology to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty for its presidential candidate's misbehavior, repudiate that misbehavior, and dissociate itself from that misbehavior. Actually, it needed to do that yesterday afternoon, and the clock is ticking. That's what it owes to Paul, to Paul's supporters, to the Campaign for Liberty, and to the LP members who resemble all those descriptions. And, for that matter, that's what it owes to the Barr campaign. Sometimes supporting the presidential campaign, as it is the LNC's obligation to do, entails at least trying to clean up the presidential campaign's messes.

The Libertarian National Committee also needs to take up the question -- i.e. get a motion made, seconded, and in play -- to remove Barr as its presidential candidate. Barr has arguably attacked the party's interests multiple times -- in terms of publicly espousing positions that conflict with the party's Statement of Principles, and in terms of running a campaign that embarrasses, misrepresents, and diminishes the credibility of, the party. If the LNC doesn't take official notice of that and deal with it by considering its options under the party's bylaws, then the LNC is a dead stick and should stop wasting the members' money on the pretense that it is a real board overseeing the real operations of a real political party.

More progress: Barr on Iraq

Bob Barr before becoming the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee:

[S]ignificantly reduce the US economic and military footprint in Iraq.

This phrasing appears in numerous articles around the web (search for it!). I can't tell if the original appearance, on Barr's web site, has been memory-holed or if my Google skills just aren't up to the task, but I recall that that appearance avoided the use of the term "withdrawal."

Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee:

The next president should commit to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq, and tell the Iraqi people that the U.S. troops will be going home.

Title of the article? "Tell Iraqis no permanent bases, says Bob Barr."

Works.

Raising the Barr, part 2: Iran

Hat tip to Susan Hogarth for calling attention to this (on the LP Radicals discussion list):

Jun 10
Press Conference, "Time to Talk with Iran"
West side Terrace of the House Canon Office Building
10:30 am Edt

This is a unique opportunity for Bob Barr to truly shine as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate. Barr, who graduated from high school in, of all places, Tehran, can claim a familiarity with the Iranian people and culture that no other candidate of any party comes close to ... and he can bring that familiarity and a libertarian policy perspective effectively to bear on US foreign policy vis a vis Iran.

Quoth Barr, as late as last year:

Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere. ... Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans).

Hopefully his perspective has changed since then. Hopefully he has realized -- as the American experience versus, among others, the Cuban Communist regime and the Iraqi Ba'athist regime prove -- that not only do sanctions not work, they have precisely the opposite effect of that allegedly intended. They entrench tyrants and allow those tyrants to continue in power.

The quickest way to remove the mullahs from power in Iran is also the approach dictated by libertarian foreign policy prescriptions: Lift all sanctions, bring down all trade barriers, and announce that the US will henceforth treat Iran (or, to put a finer point on it, Iranians) as ... friends!

It was American support for the Shah's regime that allowed him to rule autocratically -- and that produced the Islamist backlash which led to the revolution and the ascent of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian people are not, by inclination, backward. It is only American sanctions and sabre-rattling which have allowed the mullahs to continue in power by brandishing a powerful foreign enemy at their subjects.

Lift the sanctions, declare friendship ... and the theocratic regime in Iran would be lucky to last a year. Hopefully Barr will unveil exactly such a program next week.

Raising the Barr, part 1: Marriage

OK, so I've said that it's up to Libertarian Party radicals to both support our party's presidential candidate and to help him make his message consistent with libertarian principles.

I've already declared my support for the Barr/Root ticket. I'll help them in any way I can. So, when I critique their presentations, please take it as constructive criticism, designed to help them be better candidates. I'm no longer trying to beat them. I'm trying to help them beat John McCain and whomever the Democrats nominate. I'm also trying to help them be the kind of candidates whom I can point admiringly upward at from my billet as a 2008 Libertarian congressional candidate.

So, let's take Bob Barr's post-nomination comment on the Defense of Marriage Act, as transcribed by David Tomlin, and get to work:

Well, I wouldn’t be too hard, too fast to talk about the Defense of Marriage Act flying the face of anybody’s platform. It simply stands for the proposition that each state is free to make up its own decision, its people are able to decide for themselves what their definition of marriage to be and no one state should force another state to adopt its definition. A very, very sound individualistic and states rights policy.

There are ways to arrive at a libertarian position on marriage that don't require Barr to sacrifice one iota of his credibility with social conservatives. In point of fact, some adjustments would increase that credibility.

Let us start from two propositions:

First, that in one respect marriage is a civil contract between two (or more) parties. Libertarians (and conservatives) generally regard contract as a private matter between the parties to it. Sure, the courts are called in to enforce contracts when they're breached, and if the contract has criminal acts among its terms of performance it's a criminal conspiracy ... but that's about the limit of legitimate public interest. The state has no business regulating the right to contract on the basis of the gender or number of parties.

Secondly, that marriage is, outside of contractual aspects that might have to be enforced by the courts at some point, a personal commitment usually expressed as a religious rite. It's a matter of freedom of speech ("I do," "I pronounce you," etc.), freedom of religion (where applicable), and freedom of association.

Instead of defending DOMA, Barr should be telling "the business of America is business"-type conservatives "I don't like the idea of government fooling around in the business of regulating terms of contract. Right now, the fooling around is by gender and number for marriage. Next week, it could be how many popsicles you can sell to one customer or what color the wrappers have to be."

Instead of defending DOMA, Barr should be asking social conservatives "do you really want the government telling you how you may worship, what the content of your religious services are, whom your sacraments may serve? Right now, it's marriage. Next week, maybe Congress or your state legislature will want to speak ex cathedra on dunking versus sprinkling or settle the argument over the transubstantiation of the host. Who may commit to whom in your church should be for your church, not some politician, to decide."

"States rights" is a compelling argument to a certain audience (and let us not forget that Barr comes to us from Georgia, where that audience is a big demographic), but c'mon: States don't have rights -- people do. Leave that garbage in the bin with the Dixiecrats who last trafficked on it with any success ... and get mainstream, Congressman.

Support equal protection of the laws for all, Congressman Barr. Sustain the Full Faith and Credit clause, Congressman Barr. Show the voters that a libertarian political approach is not at odds with a conservative social approach, but rather protects freedom of speech, religion and association for everyone, conservatives included.

And here's the kicker, Congressman: You got told a lot during the Libertarian nomination process that you needed to apologize for some of your past actions. That was true, but it was framed in terms of "you have to do this to get our nomination." It actually goes beyond that.

Your most effective club as a candidate is not that you're a former Republican congressman. Can't swing a cat around here without hitting one of those. No, your big stick is being able to go to the public and say "My old party was wrong on [insert issue], and I was wrong with them. They're still wrong, but I'm not wrong any more. I've changed my mind and I've changed my ways. Now I'm right, and I'm asking you to help me fix the stuff that my party broke." That approach will get you ten times the media and ten times the support that trying to out-Republican John McCain would.

Being right is not enough. It's a start, but you have to add a good story to it for anyone to notice ... and you've got a very good story. You've got a Ronald Reagan story -- does "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" ring any bells?

Tell that story. Tell it right. Drive it home. Do that, and you can shift the debate, move the center, make America a better nation. We're behind you now, Congressman Barr. Time to lead.

Could Bob Barr be our next president?

Yes, he could. Really. Here's how:

If Barr can carry any states -- even one -- in a close election, he might hold "the balance of power" in the Electoral College. It's a long shot, but not an impossibility. He'll obviously play well in Georgia (15 electoral votes). Nevada (five electoral votes), too, especially with Wayne Allyn "King of Vegas" Root on the ballot as his running mate.

I'm not going to do all kinds of weird math for you here, but let's suppose that John McCain and Barack Obama come in very close -- neither with a majority of electoral votes in pocket, and Barr standing there with the difference that makes a majority.

Naturally, heavy Republican pressure will be put on Barr's electors to go "faithless" and cast their votes for McCain. If there's no majority in the Electoral College, the decision gets kicked to Congress to make. Each state's US House delegation gets one vote, and it takes 26 to win. Care to guess which "major" party controls the most House delegations?

Pressure can be exerted in more than one direction, though. And if the (still hypothetical) Barr electors stand firm, they can dictate the result: You can have Bob Barr if you go with us, or you can get Barack Obama from the Hill. John McCain is off the table.

Long shot? Yeah -- but I bet that professional handicapper Wayne Root would give it better odds than the Libertarian Party has ever had before.

Press-TO Change-O

In earlier posts, I alluded to my plans to blog on the Libertarian Party's national convention at Third Party Watch.

With TPW under new management, I am apparently posterata non grata there, and I received notice this morning that that new management had withdrawn its request to LPHQ for press credentials for myself and two other bloggers, Pauli Cannoli and Michelle Shinghal.

Let me make it clear: This was not LPHQ denying the credentials (as it did, for whatever reason, with Last Free Voice blogger GE Smith), it was the publication which I had previously been affiliated with ending that affiliation (at least for purposes of convention coverage, and I don't anticipate writing there any more except as a commenter).

As a matter of fact, Andrew Davis at LPHQ promptly honored my request for press credentials on my own hook as publisher of Rational Review, which reaches thousands of LP and libertarian movement readers through its daily newsletter and its ISIL rebrand, Freedom News Daily.

So, I'm not complaining. The press credentials were secondary anyway -- I'm not looking to raid banquets without buying a package or anything, I just want access to press events and the media room so I can get the job done.

Here's what you can expect to see (and hear) from me as a reporter at the convention:

- "The LP National Convention is Decadent and Depraved" -- periodic podcasts from the convention.

- As convenient, blogging or liveblogging here on KN@PPSTER.

- As also convenient, cross-posting of that blogging/liveblogging at Rational Review.

- Subsequent "hot washup" articles here, or at Rational Review, or elsewhere (which will, most likely, be blurbed and linked in Rational Review News Digest).

Tune in. This convention promises to be some kind of bastard hybrid of 9/11 and The Thrilla in Manila. And maybe pole dancing during the intermissions.