You know we’re in a significant debt crisis when The New York Times editorial page yells “uncle”. It did so on Sunday, November 30, 2008 in an editorial entitled “Bailing Away”. The New York Times editorial page is not known for being queasy about government intervention, but here they are worrying about the inflationary effects of all this debt, most of which is financed by “the Treasury…borrowing money and the Fed… printing it.”
One commentator recently said that after finding the limits of a gold standard based financial system in the 1930’s we are now finding the limits to a debt based financial system. It is therefore ironic for a problem born in debt; mortgage debt in particular but too much debt in general, the solution being offered is more debt; government debt.
It is possible that some short-term marginal uptick in the economy will be forthcoming from massive government “investments” be they bailouts of private industries or infrastructure improvements. We may see some short-term rebound in the economy and stock market, but it is difficult to see how the long-term economic outlook cannot but be negative.
When F.D.R. began implementing the New Deal, the federal government was about 2-3% of GDP. Today the federal government is currently about 18-20% but may approach 50% in the next few years. In 1932 the public debt was about $16B in 1932 dollars, which is about $206B in 2000 dollars. By the beginning of the war the debt was about $48B or $565B currently. At the end of WWII the debt was $269B or $5T in 2000 dollars, about ½ our current debt of about $10.7T. An important difference is much of the debt in 1945 was owed to Americans. Savings Bond a.k.a. War Bonds were marketed to U.S. citizens to get most of the money that had been hoarded during the Depression back into circulation. Today about 25% of the debt is owed to foreigners.
It’s interesting to note that as a percentage of GDP, our current debt situation is NOT the highest it’s been since WWII. That distinction goes to 1950 when our public debt was 94.1% of GDP. In 2008 our debt will equal about 73% of GDP, which is estimated to be about $14T. However, in 1950 social security and medicare didn’t face the demographic challenge it does today; a challenge that amounts to a $55T plus unfunded obligation. Plus, with hindsight, we know the country was on the cusp of about 15 years of significant growth. Today, we’re one year into a significant recession; probably the worse since WWII, that will probably last into 2010. It is, therefore, very hard to envision we’re about to enter a 15 to 20 year period of 3-4% annual growth, the kind of growth, that only with a significant reduction of the federal budget, has any hope of retiring the accumulated debt.
The prevailing wisdom is that in the current economic environment, government must intervene, deficits and debt be damned. The proof given is F.D.R. and the raving success he had in the 1930’s. However, Roosevelt’s policies worked more against growth than in support of it. Going from 25% unemployment to 14% in 9 years with a median rate of 17.2% is not a particularly great record. A factor that may influence some of today's Republicans to support intervention as much Democrats is a political culture that increasingly sees government as the problem-solver of last resort. And as we all know, getting re-elected is more important than doing what you believe is right.
The end result of all this debt, which may, in the next few years exceed our GDP, is to insure the further devaluation of the dollar via inflation, which will reduce the attractiveness of dollar based assets, which will force interest rates up, which will increase the cost of servicing our debt, which may drive us into bankruptcy.
Only unfettered capitalism and peaceful coexistence with the rest of the world can save us. More on that peaceful coexistence part later.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Keynes Would have seen it Coming....Really??
Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post in response to an Op Ed by Robert Skidelsky on Oct. 14, 2008
To the Editor:
With market capitalism on its heels, Keynesian economics is being saluted by the likes of Robert Skidelsky and Nouriel Roubini with their concomittant load of FDR style "investment" suggestions. Excellent ideas all and even better timing. We have a cash debt of $10T and unfunded liabilities of $50T plus brought on primarily by FDR programs like Social Security, LBJ's add-on Medicare and in the spirit of bi-partisanship Geoge Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit guerdon for the elderly and more importantly, 70 million soon-to-be elderly voting baby-boomers.
The pendulum is swinging far to the left and Mr. Obama hasn't even won the election yet. He will of course, by a landslide.
All the work being done to save the world's financial system in response to the government induced, greed enhanced, mortgage meltdown will go for naught due to an inability to see the real root of the problem; a fiduciary monetary system that can, ultimately, never be controlled by man. A monetary system can only be controlled by decentralized and competing sound monetary systems.
I would like to say this is going to be fun to watch, but it won't. It will be painful.
To the Editor:
With market capitalism on its heels, Keynesian economics is being saluted by the likes of Robert Skidelsky and Nouriel Roubini with their concomittant load of FDR style "investment" suggestions. Excellent ideas all and even better timing. We have a cash debt of $10T and unfunded liabilities of $50T plus brought on primarily by FDR programs like Social Security, LBJ's add-on Medicare and in the spirit of bi-partisanship Geoge Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit guerdon for the elderly and more importantly, 70 million soon-to-be elderly voting baby-boomers.
The pendulum is swinging far to the left and Mr. Obama hasn't even won the election yet. He will of course, by a landslide.
All the work being done to save the world's financial system in response to the government induced, greed enhanced, mortgage meltdown will go for naught due to an inability to see the real root of the problem; a fiduciary monetary system that can, ultimately, never be controlled by man. A monetary system can only be controlled by decentralized and competing sound monetary systems.
I would like to say this is going to be fun to watch, but it won't. It will be painful.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Debt Bomb by Rudolph Penner
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=901194&renderforprint=1
I can't give this article large enough distribution. It should be required reading for every American. It succinctly describes the implications of our mountain of debt in light of the current crisis. And the opportunity it presents to the next president.
Less anyone think this is some radical libertarian think-tank, it's not. The Urban Institute is a genuine non-partisan public policy think-tank. It was founded by L.B.J. in the '60s and the trustees appear to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats. Of the names I recognize, many, if not most, are Democrats.
There is nothing but truth here. I ask that you forward this to everyone in your address book and recommend they do the same. We need to understand the larger problem. This economic situation is as important, if not more important than the war. For one thing, we'll not be able to fight it much longer if our economy falls apart and should that happen, we'll become even more vulnerable.
It matters not if either Barack Obama or John McCain is elected. They both have spending plans that will have to be canceled or severely modified. Both of them will face an enormous problem, one as president and one as a U.S. Senator. Whomever is elected, he will need our support to get our debt problem under control. This article will help convince the American people the seriousness of the problem. It would help if they would also watch the documentary I.O.U.S.A., a documentary in which Warren Buffet, a supporter of Barack Obama, appears.
I can't give this article large enough distribution. It should be required reading for every American. It succinctly describes the implications of our mountain of debt in light of the current crisis. And the opportunity it presents to the next president.
Less anyone think this is some radical libertarian think-tank, it's not. The Urban Institute is a genuine non-partisan public policy think-tank. It was founded by L.B.J. in the '60s and the trustees appear to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats. Of the names I recognize, many, if not most, are Democrats.
There is nothing but truth here. I ask that you forward this to everyone in your address book and recommend they do the same. We need to understand the larger problem. This economic situation is as important, if not more important than the war. For one thing, we'll not be able to fight it much longer if our economy falls apart and should that happen, we'll become even more vulnerable.
It matters not if either Barack Obama or John McCain is elected. They both have spending plans that will have to be canceled or severely modified. Both of them will face an enormous problem, one as president and one as a U.S. Senator. Whomever is elected, he will need our support to get our debt problem under control. This article will help convince the American people the seriousness of the problem. It would help if they would also watch the documentary I.O.U.S.A., a documentary in which Warren Buffet, a supporter of Barack Obama, appears.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The Shift
In this election America will make a significant political shift from the center-right position to the center left or maybe just left. We will elect the most left-leaning politician ever. It has become apparent that John McCain will lose on November 4 and lose big. It will probably be an electoral landslide for Obama. This is disconcerting but it is reality. The Mortgage Backed Security (MBS) induced financial crisis was the last nail in the Republican’s coffin. The president and his party, right or wrong, get the blame or the credit for the state of the economy. The Republicans cannot recover from this. Not with a president as unpopular as this one.
Sarah Palin initially brought hope to the party. She seemed to breathe life into it. It was thought that she might be the magnet to bring those blue-collar (white) Reagan Democrats back into the fold, which could bring Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and other battleground states to the Republicans. But this economic crisis, and it is a serious crisis, will be the end of that. Governor Rendell, on ABC’s “This Week” used the following metaphor. And I paraphrase, “If you’re caught in a flood and a man on the bank has a rope, you don’t care if he’s white or black, Jew, Gentile or Muslim. All you care about is he has a rope and may be able to save you.” Obama’s poll numbers have been steadily increasing since the crisis and unless there’s a foreign policy crisis to offset it, they will continue.
An Obama victory in the current economic climate, however, is problematic. Unless Obama repudiates his campaign promises he will increase the capital gains tax and repeal the Bush tax cuts. He also has numerous programs planned that will increase spending. None of this will help the situation, with the possible exception of the spending programs. The tax increases will without doubt make it much worse. And the additional debt is its own problem. But the American people in their ignorance will think a move to the left will solve our economics problem. It won’t. But then neither will electing the Republicans.
A radical new approach is needed. The patient needs surgery. It should be apparent to everyone that the country is in serious trouble. The country needs to embrace unfetered capitalism, less government and a return to a sound monetary system. Our two predominant political parties are incapable of delivering the remedy. Freedom works.
Sarah Palin initially brought hope to the party. She seemed to breathe life into it. It was thought that she might be the magnet to bring those blue-collar (white) Reagan Democrats back into the fold, which could bring Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and other battleground states to the Republicans. But this economic crisis, and it is a serious crisis, will be the end of that. Governor Rendell, on ABC’s “This Week” used the following metaphor. And I paraphrase, “If you’re caught in a flood and a man on the bank has a rope, you don’t care if he’s white or black, Jew, Gentile or Muslim. All you care about is he has a rope and may be able to save you.” Obama’s poll numbers have been steadily increasing since the crisis and unless there’s a foreign policy crisis to offset it, they will continue.
An Obama victory in the current economic climate, however, is problematic. Unless Obama repudiates his campaign promises he will increase the capital gains tax and repeal the Bush tax cuts. He also has numerous programs planned that will increase spending. None of this will help the situation, with the possible exception of the spending programs. The tax increases will without doubt make it much worse. And the additional debt is its own problem. But the American people in their ignorance will think a move to the left will solve our economics problem. It won’t. But then neither will electing the Republicans.
A radical new approach is needed. The patient needs surgery. It should be apparent to everyone that the country is in serious trouble. The country needs to embrace unfetered capitalism, less government and a return to a sound monetary system. Our two predominant political parties are incapable of delivering the remedy. Freedom works.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Will Race Decide the Election?
Dick Polman in todays Philadelphia Inquirer suggests it will. http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080907_The_American_Debate__It_s_little_discussed__but_Obama_s_race_may_be_decider.html
The vast majority of Republicans will not be voting for Mr. Obama, my mother-in-law being an exception that proves the rule. Most Republicans will not support any candidate with positions as far left as Mr. Obama.
The vast majority of Libertarians will not be voting for Mr. Obama. They see the ever expanding federal government as the overwhelming problem facing the country. While many may be somewhat sympathetic to his positions on the war in Iraq, they have a candidate, Bob Barr and will probably vote for him; all twelve of us.
There are a rather large number of people in the middle. These are dedicated Independents who vote Republican or Democratic or even Libertarian. They are always the key to any election assuming the Democrats and Republicans play their expected rolls.
The vast majority of Democrats WILL be voting for Mr. Obama, but as Mr. Polman points out in his article about 12% of Democratic voters cite race as problematic to their supporting Mr. Obama. These are people you would expect to be supportive of Mr. Obama's left of center policy prescriptions. FYI, there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Mr. Polman extrapolates that 12% number to the larger electorate and it is not an illogical thing to do. But Mr. Polman should be under no delusion. If Mr. Obama loses the election, it will not be due to racist Republcians or racist Libertarians or racist Independents. It will be because of racist Democrats.
The vast majority of Republicans will not be voting for Mr. Obama, my mother-in-law being an exception that proves the rule. Most Republicans will not support any candidate with positions as far left as Mr. Obama.
The vast majority of Libertarians will not be voting for Mr. Obama. They see the ever expanding federal government as the overwhelming problem facing the country. While many may be somewhat sympathetic to his positions on the war in Iraq, they have a candidate, Bob Barr and will probably vote for him; all twelve of us.
There are a rather large number of people in the middle. These are dedicated Independents who vote Republican or Democratic or even Libertarian. They are always the key to any election assuming the Democrats and Republicans play their expected rolls.
The vast majority of Democrats WILL be voting for Mr. Obama, but as Mr. Polman points out in his article about 12% of Democratic voters cite race as problematic to their supporting Mr. Obama. These are people you would expect to be supportive of Mr. Obama's left of center policy prescriptions. FYI, there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Mr. Polman extrapolates that 12% number to the larger electorate and it is not an illogical thing to do. But Mr. Polman should be under no delusion. If Mr. Obama loses the election, it will not be due to racist Republcians or racist Libertarians or racist Independents. It will be because of racist Democrats.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Obama, McCain and playing the race card
I have to admit to being confused while listening to C-SPAN recently. Practically all the callers, some of whom were “professing” to be Republicans, were nonplused about McCain playing the race card with the Brittany/Paris ad. I tried to understand how this could be since it was Barack Obama who made a statement that had overt references to race on July 30, and I quote, “They’re gonna try to say that I’m a risky guy. They’re gonna try and say, well you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bill and 5 dollar bills…”. There have been protestations by those in the press such as Andrea Mitchell, who said that no one in attendance at this event thought he was talking about race (apparently Andrea can read minds). But the NY Times thinks this statement was in response to McCain’s racial attack, so by that measure it must have been racial if it is in to respond to a racial attack.
This wasn’t the first time Obama alluded to race. In fact, on June 20 in Jacksonville, he did more than just allude to race, he said, “They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?” It doesn’t take a mental giant to juxtapose those two statements and come to the logical conclusion that they are saying the same thing. Like the July 30 statement, this was in the future tense. He was warning of future attacks by the McCain campaign.
So what exactly did the McCain ad say that triggered the July 30 version? Have you seen the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton “celebrity” campaign spot? I couldn’t find a clean clip but this piece includes the essence it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/28645/nbc-nightly-news-with-brian-williams-paris-britneyand-barack-obama
This ineffectual, somewhat vapid attempt to portray Obama as vapid, has been described by the New York Times as an attempt to play “the race card”. Instead of trying to explain this I’ll just post the operative paragraph from the July 31 NY Times editorial which explains the connection.
“The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.”
And this ladies and gentlemen is the subliminal message behind the “Brittany/Paris” campaign ad; Obama with white women. So, by logical extension this classic race batting technique from the Jim Crow era means Brittany and Paris are the representatives of virtuous young white women? At minimum this reveals the absurdity of the New York Times or the stupidity of the McCain campaign.
On August 2 Mr. Obama held a news conference. He admitted that his earlier comments had a racial component. But insisted he wasn’t playing the race card but rather was just trying to explain that the Republican ad, while not racial, was designed to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about him. He said that his biography is atypical and that Republicans are going to exploit his youth and inexperience and somewhat unusual life path because they don’t have a plan for the future and instead want to make him the issue.
Well Mr. Obama needs to get used to being the issue, because this election is a referendum on him. In an undeniable Democratic year, that his lead versus McCain is effectively within the margin of error on national polls, speaks volumes to the unease the American people feel. He should be ahead by 10 points. The ill ease isn’t about race. It’s about ideology. This country has been center-right politically for a very long time. His election means a significant move to the left and a significant number of independents and moderates are concerned about where an Obama presidency will take America.
“Politics ain’t beanbag”, Tip O’Neal is often quoted to have said. But it seems that Obama wants to coat himself with racial Teflon. Obama is going to try and spin any criticism of him that is not issue related, to race. He will try to use race to deflect any and ALL criticisms by making the Republicans defensive about appearing racist. Remember what happened to the Clintons in the primaries. If it can successful against Democrats, it should be a cake-walk against Republicans.
Here’s an example. There was some criticism of Obama being arrogant especially after the speech in Germany. A caller to C-SPAN tried to spin the use of arrogance (when coming from a Republican) as code for “uppity”. In fact, on ABC’s “This Week”, David Gergen made that very argument. As a southerner, he said the real message was very clear to him. Well, it went over the head of this Southerner. If that analogy sticks then arrogance will soon fall from the political lexicon this season. But I don’t think the Republicans will take this lying down. Senator Lindsey Graham made a vociferous defense of this and said they will not allow to be done to them what was done to the Clintons. We’ll see.
This racial Teflon tactic could backfire for Obama. He has been trying to portray himself as post-racial. There ain’t nothin’ post-racial about any of this. If he keeps this up he will further alienate those blue-collar Democrats and independents that he will need to win this election. And if he loses, it will all be because he made race an issue.
This wasn’t the first time Obama alluded to race. In fact, on June 20 in Jacksonville, he did more than just allude to race, he said, “They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?” It doesn’t take a mental giant to juxtapose those two statements and come to the logical conclusion that they are saying the same thing. Like the July 30 statement, this was in the future tense. He was warning of future attacks by the McCain campaign.
So what exactly did the McCain ad say that triggered the July 30 version? Have you seen the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton “celebrity” campaign spot? I couldn’t find a clean clip but this piece includes the essence it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/28645/nbc-nightly-news-with-brian-williams-paris-britneyand-barack-obama
This ineffectual, somewhat vapid attempt to portray Obama as vapid, has been described by the New York Times as an attempt to play “the race card”. Instead of trying to explain this I’ll just post the operative paragraph from the July 31 NY Times editorial which explains the connection.
“The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.”
And this ladies and gentlemen is the subliminal message behind the “Brittany/Paris” campaign ad; Obama with white women. So, by logical extension this classic race batting technique from the Jim Crow era means Brittany and Paris are the representatives of virtuous young white women? At minimum this reveals the absurdity of the New York Times or the stupidity of the McCain campaign.
On August 2 Mr. Obama held a news conference. He admitted that his earlier comments had a racial component. But insisted he wasn’t playing the race card but rather was just trying to explain that the Republican ad, while not racial, was designed to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about him. He said that his biography is atypical and that Republicans are going to exploit his youth and inexperience and somewhat unusual life path because they don’t have a plan for the future and instead want to make him the issue.
Well Mr. Obama needs to get used to being the issue, because this election is a referendum on him. In an undeniable Democratic year, that his lead versus McCain is effectively within the margin of error on national polls, speaks volumes to the unease the American people feel. He should be ahead by 10 points. The ill ease isn’t about race. It’s about ideology. This country has been center-right politically for a very long time. His election means a significant move to the left and a significant number of independents and moderates are concerned about where an Obama presidency will take America.
“Politics ain’t beanbag”, Tip O’Neal is often quoted to have said. But it seems that Obama wants to coat himself with racial Teflon. Obama is going to try and spin any criticism of him that is not issue related, to race. He will try to use race to deflect any and ALL criticisms by making the Republicans defensive about appearing racist. Remember what happened to the Clintons in the primaries. If it can successful against Democrats, it should be a cake-walk against Republicans.
Here’s an example. There was some criticism of Obama being arrogant especially after the speech in Germany. A caller to C-SPAN tried to spin the use of arrogance (when coming from a Republican) as code for “uppity”. In fact, on ABC’s “This Week”, David Gergen made that very argument. As a southerner, he said the real message was very clear to him. Well, it went over the head of this Southerner. If that analogy sticks then arrogance will soon fall from the political lexicon this season. But I don’t think the Republicans will take this lying down. Senator Lindsey Graham made a vociferous defense of this and said they will not allow to be done to them what was done to the Clintons. We’ll see.
This racial Teflon tactic could backfire for Obama. He has been trying to portray himself as post-racial. There ain’t nothin’ post-racial about any of this. If he keeps this up he will further alienate those blue-collar Democrats and independents that he will need to win this election. And if he loses, it will all be because he made race an issue.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Libertarian Party nomination of Bob Barr is good news for Democrats
The Libertarian Party yesterday nominated Bob Barr for President and Wayne Allyn Root for Vice-President. Mr. Barr was elected on the 6th ballot. The nominees on this ballot, in addition to Barr were Mary Ruwart, Wayne Allyn Root and None of the Above. Barr won with 54% of the vote.
Shortly after the results of the 5th ballot were announced Root took the podium to endorse Barr in hopes (or probably more accurately, after a non-smoking back-room deal) to become his VP.
It’s not hard to predict that this effort will probably be as big a failure as previous elections. The Libertarian Party rarely gets more than 1 percent of the vote.
But this year could be different. Bob Barr is a very eloquent politician. He may be a Johnny come lately to libertarianism but he seems to be a dedicated convert. His VP, Wayne Allyn Root, is also a newcomer and he too comes from the Republican Party. Mr. Root is an extremely eloquent and energetic man. He has a certain charisma that Mr. Barr does not. They will make a good team.
Hence the problem for Republicans; Georgia could easily go to the Democrats with native son Barr in the race as a Libertarian. Georgia is probably one of the most libertarian states in the country. Neal Boortz , a very popular nationally syndicated radio talk show host broadcasts from WSB in Atlanta. He’s a pro Iraq War libertarian who seems to be leaning toward John McCain. But Barr is very popular; popular enough to pull enough votes from McCain to put Georgia in the Democratic column.
Georgia has 15 electorial votes, that’s 5.5% of the 270 needed to win. In a very tight election this could be very significant.
I promoted John McCain to become the Republican nominee and he is the best one for the current climate as only he can appeal to moderates and independents. His veto pen would be the only hope for slowing down what will be an avalanche of spending and tax increases once the Democrats get in office with their increased majority in Congress.
But here’s another thought; the Libertarians have an opportunity to improve their brand this election. There may still be a spark of liberty within the American people. And we need that spark to become a conflagration if we’re going to save this republic. Barr and Root could tap into the large donor list of Ron Paul and compete and in the process awaken a latent libertarianism that I have to believe still exists. They won’t win and they could guarantee a Democratic victory but to quote P.J. O’Rourke, “There is only one thing that gives me hope as a Republican, and that is the Democrats. It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”
The question is what is better for America in the long-run? Is it better to elect John McCain and hope he will be a bulwark against a Democratic Congress creating gridlock and thereby basically maintaining the status-quo. Or should we vote Libertarian help the only party that has a long-term chance to restore our republic to its founding principles.
Right now I just don’t know.
Shortly after the results of the 5th ballot were announced Root took the podium to endorse Barr in hopes (or probably more accurately, after a non-smoking back-room deal) to become his VP.
It’s not hard to predict that this effort will probably be as big a failure as previous elections. The Libertarian Party rarely gets more than 1 percent of the vote.
But this year could be different. Bob Barr is a very eloquent politician. He may be a Johnny come lately to libertarianism but he seems to be a dedicated convert. His VP, Wayne Allyn Root, is also a newcomer and he too comes from the Republican Party. Mr. Root is an extremely eloquent and energetic man. He has a certain charisma that Mr. Barr does not. They will make a good team.
Hence the problem for Republicans; Georgia could easily go to the Democrats with native son Barr in the race as a Libertarian. Georgia is probably one of the most libertarian states in the country. Neal Boortz , a very popular nationally syndicated radio talk show host broadcasts from WSB in Atlanta. He’s a pro Iraq War libertarian who seems to be leaning toward John McCain. But Barr is very popular; popular enough to pull enough votes from McCain to put Georgia in the Democratic column.
Georgia has 15 electorial votes, that’s 5.5% of the 270 needed to win. In a very tight election this could be very significant.
I promoted John McCain to become the Republican nominee and he is the best one for the current climate as only he can appeal to moderates and independents. His veto pen would be the only hope for slowing down what will be an avalanche of spending and tax increases once the Democrats get in office with their increased majority in Congress.
But here’s another thought; the Libertarians have an opportunity to improve their brand this election. There may still be a spark of liberty within the American people. And we need that spark to become a conflagration if we’re going to save this republic. Barr and Root could tap into the large donor list of Ron Paul and compete and in the process awaken a latent libertarianism that I have to believe still exists. They won’t win and they could guarantee a Democratic victory but to quote P.J. O’Rourke, “There is only one thing that gives me hope as a Republican, and that is the Democrats. It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”
The question is what is better for America in the long-run? Is it better to elect John McCain and hope he will be a bulwark against a Democratic Congress creating gridlock and thereby basically maintaining the status-quo. Or should we vote Libertarian help the only party that has a long-term chance to restore our republic to its founding principles.
Right now I just don’t know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
