Feed of Shame

What do you do when you are on Facebook and notice this in your feed?

Palin? Really? I can understand people supporting McCain. If you are pro-war, then you should be pro-McCain. If you are in a very high tax bracket, then it is in your best interest to vote for McCain. There are other rational reasons as well, and of course there is the old standby "he's not as bad as the alternative."

But what would make you support Palin? Are there women who she appeals to, despite her extreme anti-abortion stance? Maybe you like her views, that is reasonable. But then to have as a spokesperson for your views is ... embarrassing to say the least:

Distractions

Distractions are everywhere. Some people say that Ron Paul is a distraction. Is Sarah Palin a distraction? Or maybe it was Hurricane Gustav. I say that the economy is a distraction.

The focus of the election has become the economy. The economy is important, right? For two years in college, I actually double-majored in economics. If I wouldn't have been so lazy during my senior year, I would have a degree in it. However, it is not the most important issue in this election year, at least not to me. That distinction is still the war.

Sometimes other libertarian leaning people question me for voting for Democrats. I always say that I would rather have my economic freedoms violated than personal freedoms. In one case I am broke, in the other I am in jail. I don't want to be broke, but I really don't want to go to jail. There are worse things than jail, namely death. U.S. foreign policy has been dealing out death in a big way over the last eight years. War is worse than any economic or personal freedom violations. Of course war actually cause these violations as well.

Look at the Patriot Act. Clearly a war-time measure that is one of the most egregious violations of personal freedom in the checkered history of the United States. Look at our budget deficit and how much money we are spending on wars. Go beyond that and look at the weakness of the dollar and the problems that is causing.

If you keep looking, you'll soon notice the price you pay for gasoline. How much did gasoline cost before we started waging war in Iraq? I know better than most that correlation does not imply causality, but what do you think the price of gasoline would be today if the United States never invaded Iraq?

If we gasoline was in the $2/gallon range, the deficit was a fraction of what it is currently, and the dollar was stronger, do you think the economy would be much of an issue at all?

There is a price to pay for war. We have tried to push all of that cost to our children in the form of budget deficits, but it has not worked. We are paying it at the pump. We are paying it at the grocery store. We are paying it when we buy "cheap" goods at Wal-Mart.

War is the most important issue. The only hope for less war is to vote for Obama. I wish Obama would pull all of our troops out of Iraq and not even leave behind any bases. I am frightened that he will expand military activities in Afghanistan and maybe Pakistan. He is not a perfect choice, by far. But in the interest of Country First, he is the only responsible choice that I can make.

The Economics of Dr. Paul

My biggest reason for supporting Ron Paul is because I am sure he will get us out of Iraq. The war in Iraq is the most important issue of the day. It is the first time in America's history that we have attacked another country without provocation, conquered the country, and the installed a government there backed by our military. Everything else pales in comparison to Iraq.

However, Dr. Paul is also well known for his economic principles. I don't always agree with all of these, so I thought I would dissect his new plan for economic revitalization.

Also, I would like to openly challenge my "collectivist" friend to give his own thoughts on Dr. Paul's plans.

Tax Reform -- This is the biggest part of his plan, clearly. Now several of his tax cuts sound a lot like typical Republican "Reaganomics". For example, eliminate taxes on dividends and savings, eliminate capital gains tax, accelerate depreciation on investment, repeal the estate tax. All of these would benefit wealthy individuals and corporations much more than middle class Americans. The idea is that they would encourage economic growth.
In principle, I favor the first two issues. Taxes on dividends, savings and capital gains are all cases of double taxation. You pay taxes on your income. You take some of that income and invest it, and then get taxed again on that investment. Yes, this will favor the rich, but so what? Do we support something that is logically unfair just because the unfairness is concentrated on a minority group (rich folks) ?
I am more neutral on the other two issues. Reducing corporate tax rates seems like a more direct way to encourage growth, but I would probably put much lower priority on this. The estate tax is "unfair" in the sense that it only taxes estates worth over $2M. It is also a case of double taxation. Again, this would benefit the rich (folks with estates worth over $2M) more than anybody else, but so what? Also, hard coded numbers like $2M are always dubious. You could live where I live and have an estate worth over $2M without being very rich at all.
Spending Reform -- I definitely favor reducing overseas commitments. Well in particular, just get us out of Iraq and stop spending $800M/day there. Freezing non-defense and non-entitlement seems a little too cut n' dry. I would favor freezing or cutting many of those things, but maybe not all. It's hard to know, and hence my reservation from using a simplistic qualifier like "non-defense and non-entitlement."
Monetary Policy Reform -- Yes please! People should know what the heck is going with the Fed (or any other powerful agency.) How can you oppose this? As for allowing precious metals to be used as money ... it would be an interesting experiment to say the least.

Regulatory Reform -- I definitely favor repealing Sarbanes/Oxley. I can tell you first hand that this has a hugely negative effect on companies big and small. It was a classic case of knee-jerk legislation. Now for "Remove Costly and Unnecessary Federal Regulations"... sounds good on paper! More details should be given. I do favor HR 1869, though.