David Nalle reports at Blog Critics Magazine:
Chambliss ended up in a runoff largely because of Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley who drew 3.41 percent of the vote, more than enough to push Chambliss from 49.75 percent to well over 50 percent and victory. Chambliss sought support from the Libertarian Party of Georgia in the runoff, but when it was not forthcoming he was able to get backing from libertarian Republican groups to win over Libertarians and libertarian Republican voters. Although he did not get their endorsement in the original election, the combination of his fiscally conservative record and the importance of keeping total control of the House out of the hands of Democrats helped convince the Republican Liberty Caucus of Georgia to endorse Chambliss, and when he agreed to sign their Liberty Compact, the national RLC threw their support behind Chambliss as well.
That extra bit of support from the RLC won over many Libertarians, and their votes along with some votes from independents who had previously voted for Chambliss' opponent Jim Martin, were enough to give Chambliss a comfortable 57 to 43 percent win in the runoff election on Tuesday, sending him back to Washington with a strong reminder that a lot of voters in Georgia and around the nation would like to see him focus more on fiscal conservatism and defending civil liberties in his next term.
Bob Barr, the former Georgia Republican congressman who ran as the Libertarian Party presidential nominee this year, endorsed Chambliss:
In Tuesday December 2nd’s runoff election we have a choice between incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin.
I urge you to vote for Saxby Chambliss.
Sen. Chambliss is closer to the Libertarian position on a number of key issues including: shrinking the size of government, less government spending, abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax and ending the government bailouts.
And there is one other major consideration: the Legislative branch of our government should not be a rubber stamp for the Executive branch.
There should be a check and balance between the two. The Democrats are close to obtaining a majority of 60 members of the Senate which means the opposition party, the Republicans in this case, will have very few opportunities to have meaningful input on legislative actions.
To me, one party rule in both the Legislative and Executive branches is a prescription for bad public policy decisions.
Please join me in voting for Saxby Chambliss in the US Senate runoff election.
Sincerely,
Bob Barr
Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate who sent the race into a runoff, did not:
Buckley said he wouldn’t publicly endorse either Martin or Chambliss because neither candidate signed a 10 point commitment statement.
Buckley said he wanted the candidates to commit to, among other things, cutting pork barrel spending, fixing social security and not voting for an unbalanced budget.
While Buckley said he wouldn’t endorse a candidate, he did say he knew who he wouldn’t be voting for.
“I have not endorsed either man so as of right now, I can tell you I will not vote for Saxby Chambliss,” Buckley said.
35 responses so far ↓
1 JimDavidson // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm
That liberty compact document isn’t bad. Of course, I don’t think they’ll hold Chambliss to it. His first vote for a big farm subsidy is going to go unreported.
2 paulie cannoli // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Part of the problem with having a so-called two party system.
3 JimDavidson // Dec 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm
This analysis also does not review the demographics of the two election day activities. I’d guess that more black people showed up to the polls in November than yesterday, since there was a black gentleman on the ballot for president. Of course, I’ve not seen the demographics for yesterday. My guess is also that far fewer people voted, and that this may account for the percentage change, since Democrats may have anticipated they would be wasting their time by going to the polls.
Democrats also typically claim a slightly higher membership among shift workers, who may not have been able to get time off to go vote. Whether that was the case in Georgia yesterday, I don’t know.
My conclusion is that there is much information missing from this analysis to be able to ascertain that many libertarians voted for Chambliss.
4 HumbleTravis // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:23 am
I love the idea of “Libertarian influence” affecting an election but not if it means the success of pro-bailout, pro-Military Commissons Act, pro-Patriot Act Chambliss.
5 langa // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:33 am
This may have been mentioned on the other thread, but “replacing the income tax with a consumption tax” is NOT a libertarian position, let alone THE Libertarian position, as Barr claims. Unforunately, Barr is seen by many as the face of libertarianism, so those people will be confused by his statement.
6 JimDavidson // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:43 am
@5 Barr is a disgrace.
7 Steve LaBianca // Dec 4, 2008 at 10:43 am
Thanks langa @ #5. I made acomment on another thread, saying the very same thing.
THE libertarian principle is elimination of non-aggression and coercion. Taxes are a form of coercion, so the libertarian position is to oppose taxation, not replace one (coercive) tax with another.
8 kiddleddee // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Steve @#7: “THE libertarian principle is elimination of non-aggression and coercion. ”
I think you meant to say: “THE libertarian principle is elimination of aggression and coercion.” Correct me if I’m wrong.
langa@#5: Between Bob Barr and Neil Boortz, I have a full time job disavowing the “libertarian” nature of the fair tax – especially here in Georgia.
9 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“THE libertarian principle is elimination of non-aggression and coercion. Taxes are a form of coercion, so the libertarian position is to oppose taxation, not replace one (coercive) tax with another.”
Sure. But a consumption tax is, in my mind, infinitely better than an income tax. Still bad, mind you, but not quite as evil.
10 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I think it is actually worse.
11 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:02 pm
How so?
I think the consumption tax is better becasue it can be avoided alot easier, will be lower (at least, theoretically), and people will see their taxes paid EVERYTIME they buy something, as opposed to only paying taxes on one day….the day directly opposite on the calender from election day.
12 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:05 pm
See
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/first-of-the-lpa-reposts-the-fraud-tax/
13 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Also see this article and comments
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/immigration-hysteria-fair-tax-police-state-ussa/
14 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Most of those are articles from Mises saying that the FairTax is bad.
I agree. But it isnt as bad as the income tax, in my opinion.
15 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I think the consumption tax is better becasue it can be avoided alot easier,
How’s that? I find it a lot easier not to pay the income tax than not to pay sales taxes.
will be lower (at least, theoretically),
If anything, it will be higher, especially since we are much more likely to end up with both than just one or the other.
and people will see their taxes paid EVERYTIME they buy something,
On the contrary – I predict it will be included in the price, so you will never be confronted with it.
16 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Most of those are articles from Mises saying that the FairTax is bad.
I agree. But it isnt as bad as the income tax, in my opinion.
You should read all of them, and the one from JPFO, etc., to see why it is actually worse.
17 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:18 pm
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fairtax.htm
18 JimDavidson // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:02 pm
A consumption tax is regressive, in that there are certain kinds of consumption it always targets. Wealthy people can avoid consuming, say, another super yacht purchase, to avoid the consumption tax. Poor people cannot avoid consuming, say, another fifty pound bag of rice, because they have to eat.
Consumption based taxes conscript merchants to tally and collect the taxes, track any relevant exemptions, etc.
The only moral position, Trent, is the one stated by Ron Paul. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. Eliminate government spending to match, if need be.
The fair tax isn’t fair, it’s stupid. The worst part of it is that when consumption taxes are added, such as value added taxes, the claim is always that they add the new tax and then get rid of the income tax. But, inevitably, the income tax never goes away.
Of course, the fools promoting the fair tax refuse to look at this matter in any detail. In country after country after country, consumption taxes are added and income taxes are not removed. It is pathetic. But, people who want a bigger government, but wish to pretend that they want a smaller one, often behave pathetically.
See also sundry comments by Holtz and Dondero.
19 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“On the contrary – I predict it will be included in the price, so you will never be confronted with it.”
That would be stupid. If a company can list the price of a coke bottle at 1.19 or 1.35—which do YOU think they’ll list?
20 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I think that the custom will become to list the total price, including the tax, like it is with gasoline.
21 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“The only moral position, Trent, is the one stated by Ron Paul. Eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. Eliminate government spending to match, if need be.”
Preaching to the choir. Im not supporting the fairtax. Im in favor of eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing. But, like Ron Paul, I would vote to replace with income tax with the Fairtax if it came up. If it was a replacement, not an addition. As for it being regressive—all taxes are regressive,that is a given.
Also, I dont believe for a second that Holtz wants to grow the government. He wants to shrink it alot, just not as much as you.
22 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“I think that the custom will become to list the total price, including the tax, like it is with gasoline.”
It happens with gasoline because you prepay gasoline or watch it rack up. What would be beneficial to the business about listing a higher price?
23 JimDavidson // Dec 4, 2008 at 6:08 pm
@21 Sometimes the choir needs a bit of inspiration, too. You should listen to some of these choirs.
Holtz wants a smaller government? I’ve seen no evidence of it.
24 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I am not an all or nothing kind of guy. If I can replace something 100% evil with something 98% evil…then I consider that a 2% improvement. It doesnt mean im satisfied with 98%…I will continue to rail against that evil too.
25 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Let me guess, you didn’t read those articles, did you?
26 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:33 pm
If it was a replacement, not an addition.
Never works out that way in practice. And even then I would still be against it. You should actually read those articles to see why.
What would be beneficial to the business about listing a higher price?
Staying on friendly terms with the regime, for starters. It will become a great tool to track all purchases (which will soon enough be needed for enforcement) and is a great disincentive to business formation. It will screw people who saved all their lives and then get taxed again when they spend the money. There are just so many reasons that the “fair” tax is a fraud. The best thing would be to read the articles.
27 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:34 pm
As for it being regressive—all taxes are regressive,that is a given.
Not so.
If I can replace something 100% evil with something 98% evil
In this case it is replacing it with something that is 666% evil.
28 kiddleddee // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Pauli, @#20. The fair tax will absolutely be hidden in the price. That’s the only way they can hide the fact that they are lying about the “fair tax” being 23%, instead of the 30% that it actually is – and the more than 50% it will have to be if it is to replace the income tax and all the other taxes it is supposed to replace.
29 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Pauli, @#20. The fair tax will absolutely be hidden in the price.
Kind of like the letter e in Paulie
30 kiddleddee // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Sorry about that!
But that e is silent after all.
31 paulie cannoli // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm
All good.
It’s silent but deadly
32 Trent Hill // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm
There is no incentive for a business to hide the tax, better to make their prices appear lower than to lose money to the competition, who will do that inevitably.
I did read the articles, and had read some of them previously. I understand the logistical reasons to not back the FairTax—which is why I dont. The income tax would NOT be removed after the FairTax was instated. But speaking theoretically–if given the choice of the income tax/death tax/etc or the FairTax–I prefer the FairTax.
And yes,all taxes are regressive.
“In this case it is replacing it with something that is 666% evil.”
Explain how the Fairtax is MORE evil? It is definetly less evil, though not much so. To say its 6x sounds ridiculous to me.
To be clear, I despise both the income tax and FairTax. I suppose eliminating the income tax and replacing it with….nothing!
33 langa // Dec 4, 2008 at 8:21 pm
“Between Bob Barr and Neil Boortz, I have a full time job disavowing the “libertarian†nature of the fair tax – especially here in Georgia.”
Ah, Neil Boortz. With libertarians like him, who needs statists?
34 langa // Dec 4, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Regarding the tax issue, as Ron Paul points out so often, it doesn’t matter how the money is raised. It only matters how much the government spends. Since they can’t create (real) money out of thin air, every dime they spend is a dime that’s stolen from someone. Changing the method of collection is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
35 JimDavidson // Dec 7, 2008 at 1:32 am
@24 I think that depends on the cost of the 2% change. If you sabotage an effort to make a 50% change because you feel that you must do so in order to get the cooperation of the GOP in making the 2% change, then I think you have done 48% damage.
Leave a Comment