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.

A Libertarian Strategery Note

Image via Wikipedia
To the extent that the Libertarian Party has a "conventional wisdom," that wisdom says former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has the party's 2012 presidential nomination pretty much nailed down just by throwing his name in the hat.

I'm not so sure that's true -- Johnson does have some weak points when it comes to campaigning internally in the LP, such as his support for the "Fair" Tax, and I suspect my friend R. Lee Wrights, who's been running an aggressive internal ground game for the nomination, will force a debate that highlights those weaknesses -- but just supposing it is, high on the "next question?" list is the choice of vice-presidential nominee.

Unlike the "major" parties, the LP doesn't just ratify its presidential nominee's choice of running mate. The presidential nominee is given speaking time to offer his thoughts on the VP nomination, but it's a competitive race of its own.

So, who's the ideal second half of Johnson/? 2012?

Some have suggested that Johnson may already have a pick in mind. Perhaps a wealthy running mate who can pump millions into advertising for the ticket, or a "big name" that Americans will recognize. If so, that could make things even more interesting. But if not, I have a suggestion.

Two more bits of conventional wisdom: First, that Johnson will put at least some emphasis on campaigning in New Mexico, where he served two terms as governor and can probably rack up an abnormally high vote percentage for a Libertarian presidential candidate. Second, that Johnson's position on marijuana legalization will be a big part -- perhaps too big, if the media decides it wants to use it to caricature him -- of his campaign.

With those two things in mind, I'd like to suggest that the ideal Johnson running mate would be a prominent marijuana legalization advocate from a large, non-"swing," state which is likely to have a big vote gap between President Obama and whomever the Republicans nominate, and where some sort of popular marijuana-related initiative is also on the ballot.

A state like, perhaps, California.

In polling so far, Obama beats the pants off any likely GOP presidential nominee in California. That minimizes "wasted vote" considerations: Libertarian-leaning Republicans are free to vote for Johnson, knowing that the GOP candidate doesn't have a chance anyway; Libertarian-leaning Democrats know that their party's candidate has it nailed down, so they're free to register a third party "protest vote" as well.

California is also likely to have a sweeping marijuana legalization bill, the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine initiative, on its November ballot.

A prominent California legalization advocate on the ballot next to Johnson, campaigning up and down the state all summer and fall, could increase turnout for both that initiative and the LP's presidential ticket. The voters who come out for one or the other would tend to support both.

So, do we know anyone like that? Why yes ... yes, we do.

Image via Wikipedia

Steve Kubby came within about 30 votes of the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential nomination last time, even against presidential nominee Bob Barr's endorsement of his opponent, Wayne Allyn Root (a mistake which probably put a five or six digit dent in Barr's November vote total; every time Root opened his mouth, the LP ticket hemorrhaged votes).

Internally to the LP, Kubby enjoys even more goodwill today than he did at that 2008 convention, if for no other reason than that he went balls-out to stop a convention walkout by the party's radical faction and hold the party together at a tough time. He could play a similar role this time. The radicals are suspicious of Johnson's more "centrist libertarian" orientation. One of their own in the second slot would go a long way toward allaying that suspicion.

Externally to the LP, Kubby's well-known in California and positively associated with the issue of marijuana legalization. His presence on the ticket would boost both the issue and the candidate, not only in California but elsewhere ... and since some of the legalization spotlight would be on him, that would free up Johnson to get his licks in on other issues.

Just something to think about.

Disclosures: Wow, where to start?

I'm no longer an LP member, no longer vote (I'm an anarchist) and have not endorsed any candidate for the LP's 2012 presidential or vice-presidential nomination. However, I've worked with R. Lee Wrights for more than a decade, consider him nothing short of a brother, think he's the candidate most properly reflective of what the LP supposedly stands for, and have done a little (very little) back-office consulting for his campaign.

Also, I was Steve Kubby's presidential campaign manager in 2008 and still believe the LP made a huge mistake in not nominating him to either position on its ticket. I've worked with Kubby on both business and political projects since then as well. And yes, I have discussed a vice-presidential candidacy with him, and would not be writing this post if his answer had been "not only no, but f&%k no."


BUT: Kubby himself had no input on this post; he won't even know it's coming until it's up; he has not "approved this message," as it were. Nobody paid me or otherwise enticed me to release this idea into the wild, nor do I expect, if Kubby decides to throw in for VP, to make any money from having suggested it. Any pre-nomination VP campaign work I might do for him would almost certainly be unpaid and volunteer, as has been the case for everyone else I've done little things for so far this election cycle.

Gary Johnson Makes His Play

In a press conference in Santa Fe, the former New Mexico governor officially switched tracks from the Republican presidential primaries to the Libertarian Party's nomination contest.

He's already made one smart move, positioning himself as a competitor instead of someone awaiting coronation. The latter sort of arrogance (whether actual or perceived) was one reason it took Bob Barr six ballots to nail down the LP's nomination in 2008.

He's also already made one exceptionally dumb move -- bringing his support for the "Fair" Tax with him in his party switch (and, as Chuck Moulton points out in comments over at Independent Political Report, proving that even after months on the campaign trail touting it, he doesn't really understand it).

Obviously a former two-term governor enters any Libertarian Party contest as the de facto front-runner and with formidable advantages versus the rest of the field, who range from party regulars (R. Lee Wrights and Roger Gary) and perennials (Jim Burns) to single-issue gadflies (Bill Still) to other recently Republican also-rans (RJ Harris). But he's going to have to work for it, and he's also in a "nowhere to go but down, so be careful" situation.

It's going to be interesting.

Some Thoughts on the Libertarian Party's 2012 Presidential Nomination

Several candidates have announced for the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination. Fewer are actually actively campaigning for it, and fewer still are "serious candidates."

At this point, I'd identify those who make it through my exclusionary sieve (declared, and active, and serious, i.e. not Teh Krazy and with any real shot at all) as, in alphabetical order:

• Roger Gary
  
• RJ Harris
  
• Bill Still
  
• R. Lee Wrights
  

Gary and Still make that cut hanging by their fingernails. Gary's debate performances haven't been as impressive as his record, and Still doesn't seem to even have a campaign web site yet (or maybe he does ... but I haven't found it, and a campaign site should be easy to find) [correction in comments] is centering his candidacy around monetary policy views which aren't in the Libertarian Party's version of mainstream. Nonetheless, both of them have appeared at one or more candidate forums, and neither of them is a dilettante or a loon.

If I were to make an endorsement (I don't plan to), and if I were to base that endorsement on ideology, it would be a tie between Gary and Wrights. If I based an endorsement on factors other than ideology, Wrights would be the clear winner for several reasons, among them that I have worked with him on a daily basis for a decade now and consider him nothing less than a brother. And, in fact, by way of disclosure, I am very informally advising his campaign on some "nuts and bolts" matters (not the only campaign I'm working with at the moment, but the only Libertarian presidential campaign I'm working with at the moment).

At this point, it looks like a Harris-Wrights race, and it looks like Harris is setting the pace ... but in the Libertarian Party things are, well, different. The presidential nomination contest is usually actually settled in a knockdown-dragout on the convention floor, sometimes with candidates announcing as little as a few weeks before that convention (and in one case, 1984, the candidate flying in in mid-convention after getting a phone call asking him to run) [note: See comments -- that was actually the same guy, but for veep in 1976; my bad]. In 2004, the distant third-place candidate going into the convention came out of that convention as the nominee. And None of the Above -- meaning NO candidate is nominated -- is an option. So I wouldn't advise placing any bets just yet.

Why is Harris setting the pace?

Well, Wrights is running a campaign that by "old LP" standards ain't too shabby at all -- he's contacting likely delegates, addressing state conventions, making financial contributions to state parties for their ballot access efforts, etc.

Harris, though, is definitely meeting the newer ground game standards -- more early direct mail, robocalls, actual professional phone polling, live online forums, etc. That translates into an advantage that's only partially mitigated by the fact that his positions are slightly out of phase with the Libertarian Party's direction. Specifically, he's very Ron Paulish, and the only one who gets away with being very Ron Paulish in the LP is Ron Paul himself.

If the field stays as it is, my guess is that it's going to come down to which one of these two puts the best convention floor team together. But, of course, the field may not stay as it is -- a "big name" (and you'd be surprised what qualifies as a "big name" in the LP) might jump in at the last minute, or even a smaller name might throw hat in ring in the next month or so.

So, anyway, here's a completely non-scientific Internet poll if you'd like to express your preference: