A note on the 2010 Libertarian National Convention

As most readers of KN@PPSTER probably already know, the Libertarian Party's 2010 national convention will be held in St. Louis over several days spanning Memorial Day weekend.

As some of you have probably gathered, I've started a blog, St. Louis on the Cheap, with an eye toward making it cheaper for Libertarians to attend that national convention.

I've heard from several sources that the subject came up at the Libertarian National Committee's meeting in Nashville, Tennessee earlier this month, and that Admiral Michael Colley (USN-Ret.), an at-large member of the LNC and its convention point man, expressed a worry that my little project might hurt the convention hotel's bottom line.

While I don't think that worry is warranted, I also don't think it's unreasonable -- it deserves a considered response. Here's how I see it:

My main purpose in pursuing this project is to allow people who would otherwise not be able to afford to attend the convention to do so. If that's the main effect the project has, then it should enhance, rather than harm, revenues for both the LP and the convention hotel. More convention packages (possibly the lower-priced ones, but more in any case) will be sold. More attendees will drop money at the hotel bar or the attached Starbucks coffee shop, and so forth.

Let me repeat myself: My project is aimed at people who simply won't attend the convention if they aren't able to cut the costs of doing so. That may or may not include: Staying at a cheaper hotel; eating at a fast food place down the street instead of at the hotel's pricier restaurant; grabbing mass transit for $4.50 instead of blowing $40-50 in cab fare to and from the airport or paying a sizable daily parking fee at the hotel; etc., etc. Spending several days in a city away from home is expensive. I'm just trying to make it less expensive so that more Libertarians can afford to do it.

If these additional people attend the convention, they will bring money with them, and they will spend some of it in the convention's environs. Not as much money as the people who have no problem ponying up for the deluxe package, renting a suite at the convention hotel for five nights, and taking each meal in the convention hotel's well-appointed restaurant, but every dime they bring will be a dime that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

Yes, there will be some people who would and will attend whether I was helping them find cheaper ways to do so or not, and they may also make use of some of my money-saving tips. I understand that this may result in the LP and/or the convention hotel taking in a little less money here and there than would otherwise have been the case.

I don't have a problem with that. I hope no one else does, either. While it's obviously a good thing for the LP to stay "in the black" for its convention, and for the convention venue's operators to be glad they had us as guests, it's also a good thing for Libertarians (like everyone else) to find, and get, the best deals they can on the things they want and need -- that's the free market, ladies and gentlemen. And while I can't guarantee that the hoped-for additional attendance will more than balance that possible effect out and produce a net financial benefit for the LP and the convention hotel, I think there's a good chance that it will. Hopefully this will be at least a minor win for everyone.

The Senate left an extra present under your tree ...

... and it really didn't attract much notice with all the fanfare surrounding the vote on Cannibal Care, which passed and is now on its way to conference to tussle out the differences between the House and Senate versions.

Your second gift? The Senate voted to raise the "debt ceiling," i.e. to give itself the authority to borrow another $290 billion and forward the repayment demands to you. That's on top of the $12.x trillion in previously existing debt they're already trying to stick you with. Here's a letter I sent to "my" congresscritters after the House passed the measure last week (it's also available, with surrounding commentary, in my C4SS column for December 19th):

Dear Senator McCaskill,

I notice that the US House yesterday approved a $290 billion increase in the government’s "debt ceiling,” raising it from $12.1 trillion to $12.4 trillion.

Presumably the Senate will take up similar legislation in the near future.

I am not writing to yourself, Senator Bond and Representative Clay in order to urge any particular vote or action on the matter, but rather just to inform you that I’m not responsible for, nor do I intend to pay off, your debts.

I’ll be publishing this letter in one or more public spaces so that your creditors will be aware of this fact. If they’re going to loan money to the three of you and your 532 colleagues in the House and Senate, they may want to run credit checks first. Just so long as we’re crystal clear on the fact that I won’t be co-signing for you, the rest is between you and them.

Best regards,
Thomas L. Knapp

Pants on fire

Politicians lie -- heck, lying seems to be part and parcel of the very definition of "politician." How and why they lie, though, may offer us insight into their thought processes. And of course the central figure as politicians go these days is Barack Obama.

Over at Reason, Jacob Sullum and David Harsanyi plunk down two pieces of the puzzle.

Sullum:

For connoisseurs of Obama-speak, the address featured a trifecta, combining three of his favorite rhetorical tropes. There was the vague reference to "those who” question his agenda, the "false choice" they use to deceive the public, and the determination to "be clear" and forthright, in contrast with those dishonest naysayers. These devices are useful as signals that the president is about to mislead us.

In other words, Obama carefully constructs his lies as part of his pre-game strategy. He sets his strawmen up and soaks them in kerosene, stocks the pond with red herring, etc., before he ever goes forth to do battle. He uses falsehood to fortify his castle before his first sally forth.

Harsanyi:

Holy burning bushes! Did you know that everyone — and I mean everyone — agrees with the president? Obama stressed this week that you can "talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that ... whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses and government, those elements are in this bill."

Not "some" or "most" or "Peter Orszag on a two-day bender" but "every" health care economist in the entire world would tell you as much.

This sort of exaggeration reminds us of another whopper the president unloaded. While promoting the stimulus plan in January, he claimed that "there is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."

Having pre-savaged his prospective opponents before making his argument, Obama now attempts to strengthen that case by denying the actual existence of those opponents. It's one of his patented lie types -- "you're either with us or against us" with a twist of "and there's nobody against us."

A third important piece of the Obama lie puzzle turns up in an interview with the Washington Post yesterday:

Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill. ... I didn't campaign on the public option.

Except, of course, that he did exactly that:

THE OBAMA PLAN ... Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice.

So now we know that Obama is willing to flagrantly lie about what he's said and done in the past, even in the certain knowledge that the evidence is there to demonstrate that yes, he's lying.

I always thought of Bill Clinton as a narcissistic liar -- he thought he wouldn't get caught because he was Bill Clinton.

George W. Bush, I never did quite figure out. It was a tossup between "he's crazy enough to actually believe the stuff he's reading off the telemprompter" and "he just really doesn't care whether we know he's lying or not ... he's the decider and the whole talking bit is just a way to pass some time with his subjects, not anything to be taken seriously or referred to later."

Obama's a liar of a different sort. His lies don't seem to be based on his own self-image, as inflated as that self-image may be; nor is he, to all appearances, shithouse rat insane; nor does he take the "decider" tack -- he strives to create a "consensus" by preemptively claiming that one exists, which must mean that he places at least some importance on the idea of consensus.

As far as I can tell, Obama's lies are based on his impression not of himself, but of you. To put it bluntly, he thinks you're stupid. He believes that you'll believe whatever he says, even if he was saying something different a year ago and even if what he's saying now is obviously and demonstrably false. I guess that was true of a majority of American voters a year ago, but it seems to be getting less and less so.