Libertarians Predicted Tea Party Betrayal in January

August 2, 2011

Press release from the Libertarian party

WASHINGTON – On January 17, 2011, the Libertarian Party (LP) asked the 90,000 readers of its weekly email message to take a poll asking, “When will we know that Republicans successfully fooled the Tea Partiers?”

59% of respondents chose the option, “When they raise the debt limit without real spending cuts.”

View the poll results here.

Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute recently pointed out that today’s bipartisan debt deal, known as the Budget Control Act of 2011, does not cut government spending.

LP Executive Director Wes Benedict commented, “Libertarians apparently predict congressional deceit well. We knew this was coming long before it happened.”

LP Chair Mark Hinkle added, “This debt deal only does one substantive thing: it raises the debt limit. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.”

Hinkle continued, “I hope that in the future, those Tea Partiers who really want to see large cuts in government spending across the board will stop fighting their own interests by supporting Republicans. I hope they will support the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidates instead.”

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

93 thoughts on “Libertarians Predicted Tea Party Betrayal in January

  1. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I think he makes things very clear in this article that he isn’t a Libertarian. He mentions the tea party over and over again, but never our party. I’ve already gone to the national website to ask that this article be removed.

  2. NewFederalist

    If it could be more poorly written I don’t know how. This one really stunk the place out!

  3. NewFederalist

    I should make it clear I was commenting on the Wayne Allyn Root article not the LP news release.

  4. Darryl W. Perry

    I really wish people would use quotes and capital letters when talking about the Beck/Palin/Armey “T.E.A.” groups… maybe they will go away before the 2014 elections and I will not have to keep telling people that the BTP is NOT a group of people from Boston that love Beck & Palin

  5. Steven Wilson

    As wayne root as a point of reference, the only reason he is a libertarian is because he could never make the national level as a republican. His ego has always been present, but his agenda is hidden at times.

    He is a libertarian in language only. When he runs for president, he will try to pull all libertarians, tea party members, and rlc members into one giant group of wayne. His language game will be under central planning like “common foe”. He will be universal because he does not want to burn bridges. He needs a way out.

    When he is finished, there will not be any lp left.

  6. Robert Capozzi

    Let’s keep in mind that the debt ceiling issue historically hasn’t been a matter for budget debates. That’s the budget process.

    Making the debt ceiling about the budget is, with any luck, a first step. With the Rs and Ds in the house, I don’t expect real budget cuts, but let’s take SOME satisfaction in the fact that this deal changed the debate. And, if we’re really fortunate, they won’t get to an agreement in a few months and that will trigger across-the-board cuts.

  7. NewFederalist

    “When he is finished, there will not be any lp left.”

    I seriously doubt that. The LP will continue on for a long, long time. I look at the Prohibition Party and how it has existed for 142 years (at least the last 78 of which with no real purpose) and cannot see how the LP could just dissolve. The one thing both parties share in common is they are unique. If the LP survived the “purges” of the early 80’s then it can survive W.A.R.

  8. AroundtheblockAFT

    When did the American people fool the LP?
    When allegedly 20% of them appear to be ideologically libertarian but less than 1% actually vote for Libertarians. Tea Partiers have to be happy with 1/8th a loaf of victory just like the LP seems to be happy electing someone to sewer and parks commissioner in a town not even shown on Rand McNally.
    It’s going to be a long hard fight for the LP and the TP, too. Enough snark and sniping. Find common areas and work on it. Many TP groups shy away from social conservative issues so let’s help them concentrate on taking von Mises to the beach and not some “hang the druggies, kick out all foreigners, no marriage for gays, more foreign adventure” nonsense.

  9. paulie

    @1
    Snorting crack? Sorry, I still can’t stop laughing. On the other hand, it’s pretty cool to have a libertarian so completely unfamiliar with crack as to say that….

  10. paulie

    He mentions the tea party over and over again, but never our party. I’ve already gone to the national website to ask that this article be removed.

    As I understand it, LNC members can post pretty much anything they want.

  11. Stephen VanDyke

    Libertarians: 59% of us know what the fuck we’re talking about. Wait, that’s not going to help as much as I thought. :D

    The Tea Party was/is a legitimate threat to tag team partisan games so of course the war is still underway to discredit the entire movement. Republicans snuck in their emotional appeals and political games. All Democrats have to do at that point is pretty much point and laugh at those distortions and say “good job Tea Party.”

    divide et impera

  12. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Paulie @ 14: “As I understand it, LNC members can post pretty much anything they want.”

    Actually, I don’t think so. Art Olivier, for example, said last week that he can never get them to publish anything of his. He’s also a former vice-presidential candidate.

    Does anyone here know the secret to posting on the national website?

  13. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    OK, George, that makes sense. In fact, I should have figured that out myself.

    Thanks for the info.

  14. Michael H. Wilson

    in reply to Wayne.

    Tax cuts are a great idea, but starting a war and then cutting taxes? Well that’s not so great, but that is exactly what George W. Bush did. In fact he started more than one war. In the end these wars will cost the American taxpayer around $3 trillion or more for all of us just for the Iraq War. That works out to about $9,000 for each of us and figure a family of four, well that’s around $36,000. I invite you to look those numbers up and the WaPo has a nice article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

    Then Bush added a drug benefit to Medicare and that will cost about $1.2 trillion over ten years. That’s nice to know. Now to get that second job working at night. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

    I’m not going to let Obama off the hook simply because he inherited problems caused by Bush. He get a chunk of the blame but let’s be real, much of it was started under Bush and that includes the housing mess that grew out of control and that mess started with the Clinton Administration. But a war here and a war there really didn’t help matters at all.

  15. Brian Holtz

    MW) will cost the American taxpayer around $3 trillion or more for all of us just for the Iraq War (MW

    What Stiglitz wrote in his WaPo opinion piece was: “These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month — $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we’ll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.”

    If you’re counting future obligations (as Stiglitz is), then the cost of Medicare Part D is far more than the trillion dollars of spending in the first ten years. The present value of just the unfunded parts of Part D over the next 75 years is $7.2 trillion, according to the Medicare trustees’ own 2010 report. And this is after their finding that the passage of Obamacare somehow reduced Medicare’s overall unfunded liabilities from $89 trillion to $36 trillion.

  16. Michael H. Wilson

    Bilmes and Stiglitz wrote; “But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that’s a conservative estimate.”

    Hope that clarifies the point somewhat.

  17. Brian Holtz

    The inflated Bilmes/Stiglitz price tag is flawed because it includes so many forms of double-counting, and laughably attributes $800B of increased oil costs since the invasion solely to the war. Stiglitz apparently thinks oil prices are set by something other than supply and demand. The war surely didn’t impact demand much (can you say “China”?), and here’s what it did to supply:

    For a critique of Stiglitz’s double-counting, see this article by economist John Lott, author of Freedomnomics.

    I don’t understand the need for inflating the price tag of the war. Are the inflaters worried that the war would be justifiable if its true costs were what the CBO has been saying? It reminds me of how Truthers strangely need Bush and Cheney to have been behind 9/11. Are they saying Bush’s response to 9/11 was justifiable if it really was an Al Qaeda terrorist op?

  18. Tom Blanton

    How can you put a cost on lost lives and limbs – or the loss of sanity? What about the loss of freedom and privacy? Try calculating the cost of lost opportunities resulting from the greatest malinvestment of all – war.

    My guesstimate is that the true cost of the war on terror will be about $911 zillion.

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian at the most we can be assured that Ph.D economists have come to different conclusions on the costs of the wars. Maybe that tells us something about the quality of education.

    Interestingly though I have just finished a book on transportation issues where the author points out the government almost always underestimates everything.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    MHW@20,

    “Tax cuts are a great idea, but starting a war and then cutting taxes? Well that’s not so great, but that is exactly what George W. Bush did.”

    No it isn’t. Bush didn’t cut one thin dime in taxes.

    The only way to cut taxes is to cut spending. If spending is going up, so are taxes. Temporarily deferring payment of those taxes by going into debt is no more “cutting taxes” than spending more money but putting the purchases on your credit card is “cutting spending.”

  21. Michael H. Wilson

    Tom I am in the middle of staining some bookshelves and it hit me that you may be incorrect. I could be one of the few who received a tax cut, or reduction. So now I have an extra ten bucks in my pocket to spend long before the bill comes due and then I die. I’ve enjoyed a tax cut, but you get to pick up the tab. Be the way I spent that extra ten bucks on good beer.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Michael,

    Enjoy your beer!

    I did not say “nobody got a tax cut under George Bush.”

    Lots of people get tax cuts all the time. They make less money than they did the year before, or they have mortgage interest they can deduct because they bought a house, or they have a kid and can deduct for a dependent, etc.

    What I said was “Bush didn’t cut one thin dime in taxes.” Just because he may have taken less from you in some given year, it doesn’t mean he took less overall.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    The more precise term, I’d suggest, is the Bush marginal income tax rate reductions.

  24. Michael H. Wilson

    I think I was going for the phrasing the press uses when I mentioned the tax “whatever” of Bush.

    Unfortunately until we can sway the media and the public we need to talk in terms that they use.

  25. Michael H. Wilson

    By the way, I think it is entirely fair of us to point out that the Medicare drug benefit package was passed in 2003 and it was a benefit for those over 65. Those over 65 also vote the most consistently and this looks more like Bush was buying their vote at the expense of future generations.

    We call that bribery where I come from.

  26. Brian Holtz

    TB) How can you put a cost on lost lives? (TB

    Ask Stiglitz, because that’s one of the ways he pads the direct taxpayer costs of the war. Courts, market actors and policy advocates implicitly and explicitly put dollar values on human lives in many ways. To learn about this, start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life.

    When economists disagree, my reaction is not to impugn economics as a science, but rather to compare their arguments and their biases. When I do that, Lott seems more credible than Stiglitz.

    Yes, Medicare Part D is the first thing on my list of reasons Bush should have been impeached.

    Can anyone here offer a serious explanation of why the Medicare trustees say that the passage of Obamacare somehow reduced Medicare’s overall unfunded liabilities from $89 trillion to $36 trillion?

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian @ 35,

    “Can anyone here offer a serious explanation of why the Medicare trustees say that the passage of Obamacare somehow reduced Medicare’s overall unfunded liabilities from $89 trillion to $36 trillion?”

    Maybe they expect the quality of care to plunge so far, so fast, that less than half of Americans live to Medicare age?

  28. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian @ 35 Ever seen a rabbit pulled from a hat? The idea from what I have read has to do with reorganizing medicine and going to evidence based care. Part of this requires reducing fee for service medicine and instead expanding HMOs to what now will be known as Accountable Care Organization. And people who earn more than $200k will see their rates go up from about 1.5% to closer to 2.5%. I am not sure of the specifics on the adjustment, but it is close to that.

    A decent book on the issue is “The New Health Care System” by David Nather. It is in paperback so it won’t cost and arm and a leg. Enjoy. And look for rabbits along the way.

  29. Tom Blanton

    Regardless of how seriously they take themselves, those who attempt to put dollar values on human lives most likely know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    39 tb, say Country A had was on its way to the Hoppean Ultimate Stateless state. Government was tiny, say 1% of GDP. Their foreign policy made Switzerland look like Genghis Kahn…no interventions. Their military and police state were being wound down, but they still had government security forces.

    Country B was like North Korea. Taking and controlling 90% of GDP. Massive security state, too.

    Yet, Country A’s security force unjustly killed one person last year. Country B, despite its thoroughgoing statism, has somehow not killed anyone unjustly with force for decades.

    Are you telling us that you are ambivalent between the two states?

  31. Starchild

    Tom Knapp @27 and @31 – Thank you for that cogent explanation — I had not thought about the issue of spending and taxes in precisely that way before, but I believe you are correct.

    Meanwhile I’m still trying to figure out the best way to explain to people the enormity of the recent fraud that was just perpetrated by Congress and the Obama administration, along with their cronies and unwitting dupes in the media, during the recent quarrel about the debt ceiling.

    The rush to raise the debt ceiling lest the prospect of a default (which could have been easily avoided without any additional borrowing authority from what I understand) spook the markets, seems not at all unlike when the political establishment stampeded into approving the financial bailouts three years ago in the face of vague but hysterical threats of economic disaster if big banks were allowed to fail.

    If Josef Goebbels were still with us he would no doubt be celebrating another powerful vindication of his “Big Lie” theory.

    That is to say, despite all the talk in the media about how the final debt agreement contained all cuts and no tax increases, the truth appears to be that actual government spending was not cut AT ALL — the U.S. federal government is slated to spend more next year than it did last year, and even more the year after, and so on.

    We shouldn’t let anyone get away with talking about “spending cuts” having taken place when federal expenditures are still rising!

    There’s been a lot of talk about how the “T.E.A. Party” (there you go, Daryl @6, FWIW!) changed the dialogue in Washington. That they did — and media horse race coverage of this as a “win” for them notwithstanding, that seems to be ALL they changed. As far as I can tell, the underlying budgetary reality hasn’t changed one whit.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong — it would be nice to be wrong about this.

  32. George Phillies

    Interestingly, the lifetime cost of medical care for someone who dies prematurely, say at age 70, is much greater than the same cost for someone who makes it up to nearly 100. Part of the issue is that premature deaths are in fair part due to heroic medical interventions to attempt to correct for suicidal lifestyle choices such as smoking and massive overweight.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    41 sc, I wouldn’t suggest you are “wrong,” per se, but I’ve another take. Past debt ceiling raises have been perfunctory. The Tea Party forces manufactured this into an opportunity to change the parameters of the debate.

    Had they pressed for a technical default and that was successful and led to major dislocations (eg, 30% UE), that might cause a backlash. Risky, I’d say, too risky, all things considered.

    Tactically, could the TP forces have pressed and gotten ACTUAL spending cuts vs outyear spending increase reductions? Possibly. Ones that BHO’d sign? Unlikely. 50% spending cuts? No, virtually impossible.

    Realpolitick is almost entirely churned out with baby steps. IMO.

  34. Starchild

    Robert @44 – Sorry, I think the LP press release got it right — the Republican majority in the House totally blew it.

    Depending how cynical you are, they either deliberately sold out, or they were totally taken to the cleaners in the negotiating process (media protestations of the opposite being true notwithstanding).

    Per the Constitution, all federal spending authority must originate with the House of Representatives, where the GOP has a comfortable majority. That means they can stop the trend of ever-increasing federal spending or even reverse it, any time they choose.

    But probably they were thinking just like you, that it would be too “risky” (i.e. for their political capital, their careers, etc.).

    Better to just let the U.S. government slide ever deeper into its multi-trillion dollar black hole of debt. Nothing risky about mortgaging the prosperity of future generations! Nothing risky about seeing the U.S. become the next Greece when markets perceive that the debt burden becomes too great relative to the government’s ability to keep servicing it or about the dollar losing it’s role as the world’s reserve currency, or going into hyper-inflation! Probably they’ll make out all right, with congressional pensions and all the other perks of power.

  35. Robert Capozzi

    46 sc, I’m not super persuaded by the Constitutional/process argument, though I’m sympathetic. The super congress looks like a conference committee to me.

    I’d like to see the trigger triggered, for I’d like to see an across-the-board cut – including military – as a matter of precedence.

    I’d suggest that there are different sorts of risks. Some are very immediate, others are slower burns. Negotiating is an imprecise art.

    It would be WONDERFUL if an L was at the table. A crafty one might be able to present practical ideas about how to shrink government in a way that neutralized sufficiently the objections from the left and right while moving the center of gravity toward liberty.

    Not the case.

    The (irrelevant) fringes function as a safe, detached cocoon.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    They’ve pulled the old “across-the-board trigger if we don’t come up with specifics” thing before — it was called Gramm-Ruddman, and every time they came up against it, they just legislated an excuse.

    That’s exactly what they’ll do this time, too.

    The problem with “realpolitik baby steps” is that they only seem to go in one direction.

    It’s never just a little less spending, it’s always just a little more debt.

    It’s never just a little less police state bullshit, it’s always just a little more “simmer down and show your papers to the nice man with the badge who’s feeling you up.”

    The car can’t be turned around. It has to be brought to a screeching halt so we can get out of it, and set on fire so that some asshole can’t come along, re-start it and run us over with it. Or we can wait until it breaks down on its own, which it appears to be on the verge of doing.

    There just ain’t no other way.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    The S&P is moving to downgrade the US government’s debt rating.

    Apparently they’ve temporarily delayed issuing the downgrade after Treasury claimed they made a math error in calculating deficit projections, but it’s probably still coming.

    Moody’s et al haven’t made a move yet, but at least one major Chinese debt rating agency has downgraded the US twice this year already.

    What I wonder is where these rating agencies are able to find analysts who are blind or stupid enough to believe the US government remains credit-worthy at all, let alone at AAA.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    48 tk, we’ll see if the triggers get triggered. We’ll see if they do work around it.

    But, OK, let’s assume that “only” bringing the car to a “screeching halt” will work, that that’s the “only” viable option. It may happen…by default, though. Not because a few hundred thousand Ls advocate it, at least, that I can see. UNLESS, of course, there is some sort of Great Awakening, in which large numbers “convert” en masse to the notion that a near- to completely-stateless society is desireable.

    That, to me, seems even MORE unlikely than a move to turn things around.

    Some sort of crash-and-burn scenario seems more likely than a Great Awakening/Screeching Halt scenario. Or something else…I have no crystal ball.

    I do, however, bristle at the word “only.”

    My operative assumption is a hard fall, followed by a next-big-thing technology leapfrog. My guess is by the time I’m 60, in less than a decade, the world is gonna be amazing.

    Or, we’ll be Beyond Thunderdome…

  39. Starchild

    Robert @47 – What do you find unpersuasive about the idea that the House of Representatives, per the Constitution, must initiate spending measures, and therefore could simply refuse to pass any budget that didn’t shrink government spending by a certain percent?

    If there were a House majority who actually wanted to cut government — and had backbones — they could easily do it.

  40. Starchild

    P.S. to Robert – And why should voters elect Libertarians, if Libertarians don’t have significantly more backbone or chutzpah when it comes from standing for freedom than do the leaders of the establishment cartel parties?

  41. Robert Capozzi

    53 sc, it depends on what “initiate” means.

    As for Ls being elected, I assume more commitment to liberty than others. I just don’t find that Ls “must” take the most extreme position on everything.

  42. Starchild

    Here’s some of what the Campaign For Liberty coordinator for California, Matt Heath, has to say about the debt ceiling fiasco in a recent email message. He gets it:

    “Never shy to spend our money, the government blew nearly 60% of the immediate debt ceiling increase in just one day after final passage. But that is not the worst of it.

    They created a ‘Super Congress’ appointed by Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell–all bitterly opposed to everything you and I have been trying to do–to ram future taxing and spending through the Congress.

    In a shocking procedural end-run around the Constitution, the U.S. Congress will not be permitted to filibuster, amend, or debate proposals from this “Super Congress.” But even that is not the worst of it.

    The politicians gave themselves a larger line of credit, and the stock market, seeing right through the ‘solution,’ went sailing downhill, the Dow losing a whopping 500 points the very next day.

    But, believe it or not, that is not the worst of it.

    This deal adds 7 trillion dollars to the debt, with a budget that will NEVER balance.

    What does this ‘deal’ sound like to you?

    They’ve heaped mountains of debt on our children, ignored the will of the people, violated their oaths of office–this might be the worst single aspect of this massive taxpayer heist.

    They sold you down the river.

    What infuriates me more than anything else is that Republicans who overwhelmingly supported this deal are now going to go back to their districts and lie to their constituents.

    They are going to claim that they ‘cut’ spending.

    Congress was slated to increase spending every year until the economy reached the breaking point. The only ‘cut’ in this arrangement is a slightly lesser increase in future spending that continues to escalate and NEVER balances.

    The establishment’s talking heads call this a ‘victory for the Tea Party,’ but don’t let them take you for a fool.”

    Oh, and for those in California — or for anyone who sometimes find him/herself with a minute or two to kill while you have a phone on you — here’s Matt’s list of the House Republican sell-outs in California who voted for this legislation:

    Wally Herger (R—2nd): 202-225-3076
    Dan Lungren (R—3rd): 202-225-5716
    Jeff Denham (R—19th): 202-225-4540
    Elton Gallegly (R—24th): 202-225-5811
    Howard McKeon (R—25th): 202-225-1956
    David Dreier (R—26th): 202-225-2305
    Ed Royce (R—40th): 202-225-4111
    Jerry Lewis (R—41st): 202-225-5861
    Gary Miller (R—42nd): 202-225-3201
    Ken Calvert (R—44th): 202-225-1986
    Mary Bono Mack (R—45th): 202-225-5330
    Dana Rohrabacher (R—46th): 202-225-2415
    John Campbell (R—48th): 202-225-5611
    Darrell Issa (R—49th): 202-225-3906
    Brian Bilbray (R—50th): 202-225-0508

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @52,

    I’ve always operated on — and frequently stated — the assumption that any “Great Cataclysm” will come about for reasons other than the agitations of a few thousand libertarians.

    Credibility AFTER such a “Great Cataclysm” moment, however, will belong to those who predicted and offered ways past it BEFORE it happened, instead of participating in the intermission fiddling during Burning Rome: The Musical.

    As for large numbers being required to steer revolutionary changes in the desired direction, history says that’s just the case.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    Starchild @ 53,

    Could you tell me where in the Constitution you find the requirement that all spending measures must be initiated in the House of Representatives? It seems to be missing from every copy I can find.

  45. Michael H. Wilson

    I have no desire to get involved with a discussion here regarding specifically what someone meant. Sometimes it can be fun.

    But I would suspect that maybe Starchild might have meant section 7 regarding revenues.

    “Section. 7.
    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

  46. Starchild

    Tom @61 – Yes, what Michael said @62. I interpret “raising revenue” to include borrowing money and creating money. And you can’t spend it unless you’ve somehow raised it, borrowed it, or created it.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    sc, I’m not sure where this debt-ceiling legislation started, but the House passed Cut, Cap and Balance, which led to this deal. The law enabled a deal that said IF we can’t agree to spending cuts of X specified by a special conference committee (Super Congress), across the board spending-trajectory cuts happen. As for THIS deal being a deficit spending increase and therefore it’s a “tax” increase, not buying it. A budget MIGHT be that, but this isn’t the budget. That happens later. Budgets usually do start in the House, and likely will. Your interpretation is quite a stretch, IMO.

    IF the TPers had triggered a technical default, and the market fell 30,40, 50% and UE jumped to 30%, the TP would be blamed, and it would stick. My guess is that would be a match to light a surge of statism that would rival the New Deal in its liberty-destructing qualities.

    Neither of us know for sure what would or would not happen. Way too many variables, agreed?

    Tk, OK, so let’s say the Great Cataclysm WILL happen, with 100% certainty. (In truth, I’m not at all certain, but I’m playing along.)

    Say it happens in 2012. Mad Max and the survivors look around and say, Gee, who’s to blame? Which path would have been the better one?

    Pouring through the wreckage, Max finds the C4SS website. Marc Faber YouTubes. Gerald Celente’s scribblings. (People might start wearing scarfs and speaking with a Bronx accent! ;-) )

    They might also read Cato and Reason.

    They might also read Paul Krugman. Etc.

    Who’s the more “credible”? Why do you think post-Great Cataclysm, obscure stateless scribblers will be any more in vogue than they are now? Hungry, desperate people are more inclined to statelessness because…?

    Frankly, I suspect that people don’t pay THAT close attention. Assuming Thunderdome, assuming there’s a Great Awakening, assuming people will be inclined to L ideas, I seriously doubt they’ll see a big difference between Knapp-ism and Capozzi-ism and Holtz-ism. Those Ls were right all along, they might say.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    MHW @ 62, SC @ 63,

    I don’t see any way that the definition of “raising revenue” can be reasonably stretched to cover spending. Raising is raising, spending is spending. They’re not exactly opposites, but they’re two very distinct activities.

    Contextually, it looks like the reason that bills for “raising revenue” had to originate in the House is sensitivity as to tax apportionment among the states. There was no such sensitivity about spending, since in theory the federal government’s mission wasn’t to shovel money back at the states after taking it from them.

    Bob @64,

    Post-Great-Cataclysm, the conventional wisdom will almost certainly be that said Cataclysm was inevitable. That’s how people handle large historical shifts.

    That being the case, when and if they look for guidance to pre-Cataclysm writings for guidance of any kind, it’s reasonable to assume they’ll give more weight to the writings which predicted and explained the coming Cataclysm than to those writings which insisted that it was not coming and need never come, if only we tweaked the existing system to keep it rolling along in perpetuity.

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    Tom I think originally the Congress was not intended to spend what it didn’t have. Going into debt wasn’t a plan.

    Today we get advance on the credit card and then use that advance to make the monthly payment on the same card.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    67 mhw: Tom I think originally the Congress was not intended to spend what it didn’t have. Going into debt wasn’t a plan.

    me: Evidence? The US was in debt from the get-go, as I recall…

  51. Robert Capozzi

    66 tk: …it’s reasonable to assume they’ll give more weight to the writings which predicted and explained the coming Cataclysm than to those writings which insisted that it was not coming and need never come, if only we tweaked the existing system to keep it rolling along in perpetuity.

    me: Hmm, Chicken Little, yup, could be correct. But, no, I don’t think that’s correct, IMO. Someone may be a prescient prognosticator, but even if they are, they won’t necessarily then leap to conclusion, hey, yeah, let’s have no government. IMO. Prognostication and sage are two different functions….IMO.

  52. Michael H. Wilson

    re 68 Great Caesar’s Ghost Robert! I do believe that the men who wrote the Constitution understood the problems associated with being a debtor a hell of a lot more than the boobs running things today.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@69,

    Electoral politics requires convincing a majority to support you.

    Revolutionary politics doesn’t. If it did, revolutions would never happen.

    Anarchist revolutionary politics in particular doesn’t even really require execution of a particular plan for a stateless society, although such visions exist. All it really requires is the ability to thwart execution of plans for a state.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, the Constitution clearly permits the US Government to incur debt. Its second power enumerate in Article I, Section 8 (after the power to tax) is “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States …”

    The framers probably weren’t sitting there thinking “yeah, let’s run a perpetual, and ever-growing, tab,” but they didn’t really put any safeguards in there against it either.

  55. paulie

    OK, so backing up…

    Starchild said all spending must originate in the House, you corrected that it is actually only taxes that have to be originated in the House.

    You also point out Article 1 Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power To…[..] borrow money on the credit of the United States;”

    Are you saying that the president also has such a unilateral power under the constitution?

    If not, your correction is tantamount, as I understand it, to saying that the US Senate may also originate spending if it is paid for with debt rather than with revenue? Or did I misunderstand?

    If my understanding is correct, Starchild, while not technically correct in saying US House rather than US Congress, was nevertheless correct in the essence of what he originally said.

  56. paulie

    As I understand it, spending bills have to pass both houses of congress, not just one or the other.

    If I am not mistaken in that regard, what difference does it make if in fact the US Senate rather than the US House can originate a spending bill provided it is paid with debt rather than revenue (and if debt is not considered revenue for this purpose)?

    The house could nevertheless then block any such spending, correct?

  57. Robert Capozzi

    71 tk: All it really requires is the ability to thwart execution of plans for a state.

    me: Looks to me like that’s not working out so well. I can’t say I know where it HAS worked out. Why keep doing so, if so?

    ON MHW, TK, and P’s issues being discussed, the Framers may have been bright dudes, but debt was not per se something that they wouldn’t or didn’t do. I suspect they’d be overwhelmed with the current situation…so many moving parts.

    I’m not one to invoke the slavers — I mean Framers — much. I give them a LOT of contextual points for moving more or less in a peaceful direction, but they didn’t crack the code.

    I don’t see this VERY strained move on RP’s part to call the Super Congress a violation of the letter of the Constitution, and I’m not even persuaded it violates the spirit of it. The House agreed to this “solution.”

    Perhaps the Framers wanted the debt to be temporary. I’d say nearly everyone does now in theory, too. Heck, even Keynes believed that surpluses should be run in fat times, a point I never see made. That hasn’t worked out, either.

  58. Robert Capozzi

    mh: Hinkle continued, “I hope that in the future, those Tea Partiers who really want to see large cuts in government spending across the board will stop fighting their own interests by supporting Republicans.

    me: I’m a bit surprised (as a centrist, moderate L) that the “left,” “radical” Ls are not squawking about this statement by Hinkle. Sounds like “right wing opportunism” to me….

  59. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    The second sentence might be MORE offensive to “left,” “radical” Ls….

    “I hope they will support the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidates instead.”

  60. paulie

    debt was not per se something that they wouldn’t or didn’t do.

    I believe it was meant to be reserved for times of war or national emergency, but yes, i could be wrong.

    I’m not one to invoke the slavers — I mean Framers — much. I give them a LOT of contextual points for moving more or less in a peaceful direction, but they didn’t crack the code.

    Agreed.

    VERY strained move on RP’s part to call the Super Congress a violation of the letter of the Constitution, and I’m not even persuaded it violates the spirit of it. The House agreed to this “solution.”

    So you think the House can delegate its powers in any way, shape or form that a majority of members agrees to? Where does that leave members like Paul who are in the minority on such a delegation of their constitutional authority?

    Perhaps the Framers wanted the debt to be temporary. I’d say nearly everyone does now in theory, too.

    I don’t think that’s true. Having dealt with addiction issues, in myself and others around me, for much of my life, I’d say the national mood now is one of active binging and denial, with increasingly severe consequences only reinforcing the behavior.

  61. paulie

    I’m a bit surprised (as a centrist, moderate L) that the “left,” “radical” Ls are not squawking about this statement by Hinkle. Sounds like “right wing opportunism” to me….

    Sounds fine to me. Notice, those Tea Partiers who really want to see large cuts in government spending across the board . That would not be all tea partiers.

    Likewise, I hope that in the future, those people who really want to see large cuts in military spending, domestic surveillance, abrogation of civil liberties, government-enforced discrimination against LGBT people, the drug war, corporate-government collusion, etc., will stop fighting their own interests by supporting Democrats.

    Not all people that want to see large cuts in government spending across the board are in favor of coercive social conservatism, and not all people in my example are in favor of massive tax/borrow/spend by the government. There are significant numbers of libertarians and near-libertarians in both groups who still primarily vote for Democrats or Republicans. The job of the LP is to peel away some of these from each side; Hinkle’s quoted statement is an attempt to do just that.

    What some of us object to is the skewing of LP position so as to recruit exclusively or overwhelmingly from the right. We see opportunities on the left as well, and would like a more balanced approach. To be fair, I have seen some of that balance from LPHQ with Benedict and Hinkle. I’d like to see more of it in the future, too.

  62. paulie

    The second sentence might be MORE offensive to “left,” “radical” Ls….

    “I hope they will support the Libertarian Party and Libertarian candidates instead.”

    Those that reject the LP and voting in principle, yes.

  63. Robert Capozzi

    79 p: So you think the House can delegate its powers in any way, shape or form that a majority of members agrees to?

    Me: No, I think spending is not taxes in the Constitution. And the House and Senate will vote on the Select (Super) Committee’s recommendation.

    80 p: We see opportunities on the left as well, and would like a more balanced approach.

    me: Yes, but Hinkle did not balance the message. I too am OK with the message in that sense. I do wonder whether the LP’s message has become more balanced under this LNC for the left/”radicals”. Not sure how you’d measure that.

  64. paulie

    “Or did I misunderstand?”

    Apparently so. I wasn’t trying to imply anything beyond what I actually wrote.

    Then I still don’t understand you. Who all, in your view, can originate spending under the constitution? Can any spending be constitutionally done which has not been authorized by both houses of congress?

  65. paulie

    I think spending is not taxes in the Constitution. And the House and Senate will vote on the Select (Super) Committee’s recommendation.

    As I understand it, the normal rules of debate and amendment will not apply. A minority of members did not agree to that. The question is whether the majority can make that decision for them under the constitutional rules, again as I understand it.

    Hinkle did not balance the message.

    Different press releases address different topics. That’s not a problem.

    For example, http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/phone-hacking-scandal-highlights-danger-of-intrusive-government or http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-obamas-afghanistan-policy-is-a-failure or http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-40-years-is-enough-end-the-drug-war to take 3 of the last 6.

    I do wonder whether the LP’s message has become more balanced under this LNC for the left/”radicals”.

    I would say yes, especially if you count Wes’s tenure at lphq prior to this LNC term as effectively part of this term. However, I think there is still work to be done.

    Not sure how you’d measure that.

    At the moment, I’ll be lazy and say it is mostly subjective/intangible. Perhaps someone else will want to measure, or not.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    86 p, the only applicable clause I see in the C is “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”

    I’ve not wasted time trying to find the case that this process is unC. I don’t buy that spending is taxes, which seems the only argument for this process being unC. (Spending represents a kind of tax, but I see that as a different matter, ie, economic theory. Law and economics aren’t the same thing, for me.

  67. Robert Capozzi

    82 p, Kampia needs to be hogtied, sent to Auburn, and it appears to me he’d need the big guns to deprogram him from the Beltarian Menace. Are Hogarth and Blanton available?

    Even with their ideological skills, it may take years to correct this insidious form of statism that has infected Kampia’s mind. I for one pray for his soul….

    ;-)

  68. paulie

    Kampia needs to be hogtied, sent to Auburn,

    Maybe we’ll finally get a medical marijuana bill through the Alabama legislature then?

  69. Robert Capozzi

    89 p, I think I can anticipate the Hogarth/Blanton reaction: That’s a tiny improvement, but why would a REAL L involve him or herself in such a sideshow? We mean to smash the state, not tinker on the edges.

    Kampia shows such a CONTEMPT for PRINCIPLE in this video. Notice how he raises his eyebrows with scorn when he says “pure” L. Were membership dollars spent on the two-bit propaganda? I DEMAND to see a full accounting! “L” has a precise definition. One is a L or one is a statist. “Pure” is redundant!

    When you understand that the State is our ENEMY, out to control all we do, the individual embarks on a no-going-back radicalization.

    Kampia must not have had the epiphany…

    ;-)

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 85,

    “Who all, in your view, can originate spending under the constitution? Can any spending be constitutionally done which has not been authorized by both houses of congress?”

    As far as “origination” goes, a broad interpretation would be that anyone can SUGGEST something.

    The president can and does go to Congress and say “I really need you to pass a budget that looks like this.”

    The House can drum up a bill and pass it, then see what the Senate does with it.

    The Senate can drum up a bill and pass it, then see what the House does with it.

    When both parts of Congress pass the same thing (which usually happens after they’ve each passed something different, then hashed the differences out in conference committee and re-voted on a final identical bill) and the president signs it, voila, you’ve got a law. Unless all three agree (or unless the first two override the third with a supermajority vote), you don’t.

    A stricter interpretation of “originate” would say that origination occurs when a bill is formally introduced in Congress for consideration and possible passage.

    The Constitution says that on the subject of raising revenue, that has to happen in the House (i.e. the Senate can’t pass it and then send it over, it has to be the other way around). On other subjects, it just says that when both houses agree and the president signs off or is overridden, it’s good to go.

    No, no spending can be legal which has not been authorized by both houses of Congress (and signed by the president, or passed as a veto override): “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (process for making law described above).

  71. paulie

    Apologies for delayed response, I hadn’t been online since the 7th…

    Basically, it still seems to me that Stachild was essentially, even if not technically, correct: the Republicans in Congress could have stopped any increase in spending if they really wanted to do that.

Leave a Reply