Hello everyone who still might have this blog in their reader. I’ve decided that if Rick Sanchez is deemed worthy enough to have his own show, I’m worthy enough to throw out some opinions about politics. Also, Jonathan and I hope to get some other writers on here. For now, though, I’ll just do a quick grading of Obama’s first year.

• Civil Rights: F
• Economy: D
• National Security: C
• Energy Policy: D
• Education: F
• Health Care: D:
• Fiscal Responsibility: F

Overall, I think it was a pretty poor year for the President because he showed a lack of real leadership, and deferred to Congress on most everything, and rarely was able to articulate a clear policy on anything. From July 7th to the current date, there was *nothing* Republicans could do to stop any legislation from passing. Not a thing. Reid and Pelosi had enough votes (theoretically) to stop debate on everything if needed. It’s hard to call Republicans “obstructionists” if they don’t have the power to actually obstruct (which they would if they could). If Obama was unable to get his agenda into law from July 7th on, that’s on him. It was his lack of leadership that is to blame.

However, no one should really be surprised. He ran on his great speeches and talk of the future, without relying on his extremely thin record of actually getting things done. His first year of getting pretty much nothing done fits in line with his career. I also think it should finally be evident to everyone, that he is not “Change”, he’s not a “transcendent figure”, and he’s not really a “rockstar president”. He’s a smooth talking politician from Chicago, who injects politics into everything he does, from having an anti-woman speaker at his inauguration (Rick Warren) to ignoring gay rights, to even lying about the new Presidential dog. He’s plain old politics through and through.

This week with wide support and much fanfare, the US Senate passed a bill called the “Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009″, touted as a measure to “protect” us against the “evil greedy” credit card companies. Let’s get the the basic facts straight though. No one is required to use a credit card. No one is required to carry balances over each month. No one is required to spend up to the limit of five or more credit cards. I do realize emergencies happen, but I have yet to see any study or report that shows a large amount of credit card use to be anything but conspicuous consumption. Our problem with credit is not that we have tons of unprecedented emergencies, but simply that we spend too much. The problem with credit card balances are not the credit card company’s: we own that one.

That is not to say that credit card companies have our best interests (bad pun, har, hard) in mind, either. After all they are in the business of giving unsecured lines of credit to the general population, and currently they are in trouble as an industry for giving out credit lines to too many people with lousy credit histories. They’ve been poorly run and I have little sympathy for their self created problems. If they can’t be responsible in who they choose as customers, then good riddance. Go bankrupt for all I care.

So now, with the economy in shambles and politicians eager to earn brownie points with consumers who on average carry around $11,000 on credit cards, comes the warm and snuggly sounding bill that gives us consumers a new “bill of rights.” Credit card companies will now be restricted in rate increases, for how long they can increase rates, be required to make the fine print more obvious, and show people how long it will take to pay off their balances with the minimum payments. In other words, this bill is designed to limit revenue generated by credit card companies and provide information that people already have access to if they were responsible with their finances. While I don’t agree that the government needs to get involved in this, let’s all be honest with what this bill is really doing. If you believe this is indeed where government should intercede, fine. I understand where you’re coming from. I just don’t agree with it, and allow to explain why.

The credit card companies are going to react in some way. They’re going to react in ways Congress and Obama certainly haven’t considered. Let’s look at a few obvious ones that have already been thrown out there:

* Return of the annual fee
* A paring back of reward programs
* Fewer promotional rates and offers
* Job cuts

However, I think there is one change that might well happen but no one seems to have discussed. Credit card companies might in fact, raise credit limits. This might seem counter intuitive, but it seems to me to play into human behavior. Consumers will not change behavior because of this bill. They might because of the economy, but not because of this bill. Credit card companies will need to make up the revenue somewhere, so why not increase limits and take the interest off of larger balances. I honestly think that is where this bill creates incentives. Instead of seeing rates of 18% on $3,000 balances, you’ll see 9% on $6,000.

Using a calculator from bankrate.com, a $3,000 balance at 18% paying the monthly minimum, will cost you $1716.00 in interest. Using the other scenario, you will pay $1355 in interest. While the credit card company took a 21% hit in revenue, you went into twice as much debt. At 11% interest rate is where the credit card company gets back to the same amount. Surely, a credit line of $6,000 at 11% will seem like a great deal compared to $3,000 at 18%. The former looks like the deal of someone who is well off and is responsible, the latter perhaps the average consumer, but they pay off the same.

I think it is an almost certainty that the credit card companies will react in some way that will in the long term be more detrimental to consumers than if the government had never gotten involved. There will be unintended consequences not listed in this article, too. The government is removing a moral hazard from the consumer-credit card company relationship, and history has shown us that usually leads to unintended disasters. I wish our legislators would take more seriously the cause and effect of changing the incentives.

On a side note, I applaud the news networks for pointing out the completely unrelated rider attached to the bill allowing loaded handguns into national parks. However, I wish they would do it more often, that is, pointing out unrelated legislation, and not just when it’s about an issue they are either strongly for (Fox News) or strongly against (MSNBC).

On Friday, May 8, 2009, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) wrote to his constituents in an email newsletter that the “President Proposes Cuts to Key Ag Programs.” He writes that the proposal “includes ill-advised cuts to the farm safety net without a serious attempt to trim back the bloated federal budget and reduce our national debt.” This is probably a valid point. I don’t pretend to know the nuances of our “farm safety net”, having never heard of it. But I am certain that we need a serious attempt to cut spending and reduce our national debt. I might have just deleted the email, but there was one glaring example of the systemic problems we battle when it comes to a huge, imperial federal/central government and career politicians.

At one point he writes, “Time and time again, we have seen the administration unfairly target agriculture programs to achieve savings and completely discount the hardworking men and woman that rely on these programs for their livelihood.” Read that again, especially the last bit. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

I really want to know what programs provide “hardworking” folks their “livelihood”. I’ve tried to imagine what that really means. I know that many (if not almost all) people who work in the ag industries are hardworking. Farming ought to be the fundamental example of how entrepreneurship, hard work, personal responsibility and the free market works. But it bothers my work ethic to picture anyone using any Federal program as a regular and primary means of support, and this is worded in a way that assumes just that scenario. It also assumes a permanent flow of funds, rather than temporary assistance through a tough season.

I think he may have simply overstated the level of their reliance (I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt), but it does highlight a point or two that should be made.

First, Chambliss the politician is typical in that he hates to see a cut in programs that benefits his own constituents, even if the benefit is actually a shackle that keeps them from moving on to better things. From a libertarian point of view, this type of welfare, by keeping entrepreneurs locked into an unsuccessful business model, hinders freedom and the creation of new products, services and industries and is therefore not an actual benefit at all.

Second, Chambliss can display outrage at the kind of unprecedented spending we’re witnessing, but the Federal government has been overstepping it’s fiduciary authority (and thereby enslaving people while buying their votes) for generations – even when the Republicans were in charge. Saxby’s Republicans differ only in a) to whom the funds are targeted and b) what the size of the check will be.

Now that the Democrats won so handily in 2008 there seems to be some legitimate remorse in the Republican Party, and they are beginning to (perhaps desperately) look at many issues now in the same way that the Libertarian Party already does and always has. But there’s no guarantee of his continued contrition once a Republican returns to office. There are, however, extraordinarily good odds that a Libertarian Party candidate will adhere to libertarian principles once in office. Why would he run as a libertarian if he didn’t already hold those values as his own?

The two major parties are different only in degree. Voting Libertarian is the real vote for change.

One of the worse commentators on CNN has to be Roland Martin, and this week he did nothing to change my mind. I don’t want to rehash the whole Miss USA gay marriage answer debacle. If you’re against gay marriage, you might be thrilled at the answer Miss California gave, even if she sounded as inarticulate as she did. If you’re for gay marriage (or rather against state sponsored discrimination when it comes to marriage), you were probably appalled by both her answer and Perez Hilton’s douchey demeanor afterwards. Personally, I think beauty pageants are idiotic, and Perez Hilton is a lowlife purveyor of celebrity gossip trash.

However, it did indeed make news, so I’ve had to listen to a lot of gabbing about it on CNN. Today I noticed a commentary on how he appreciated the honesty of her answer (http://bit.ly/GWiQC). He defends her by comparing her position to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, calling them the four of the biggest liberals in the country.

Yeah, whatever, Roland. I’m sure if she had said “The Bible tells me the races shouldn’t mix, so I’m against interracial marriage” you would be smiling and celebrating her honesty. Please. You’d be calling her a small minded racist Republican emblematic of the continued race problems in the United States. Because of your own religious beliefs, however, you’re just smiling and thanking her.

Look as a libertarian, I don’t think the state should have anything to do with marriage, however, that pipedream isn’t going to happen. The state has been in the business of regulating marriage too long to go back, so gays should have the right to marry, period. I don’t care what anyone’s particular translation of a 2,000 year old arbitrarily chosen set of fictional books says, gays have the Constitutional right to be treated equally under the law. If you don’t like that, well, you have some soul searching to do, because it was just two generations ago that people used the Bible to argue against interracial marriage, and even just interracial dating. As repulsive as that sounds now, I hope opposition to gay marriage sounds as repulsive when I’m old and gray and long retired.

Reference:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/martin.miss.california/index.html

When President Obama ran for president, he ran on few solid issues or theories. He promised “Change” and told us to have “Hope”. Whether I liked the few policies he talked about or not, I had to hand it to him, he ran a great campaign. He was the right candidate at the right time with the right rhetoric. The press has swooned over Obama, repeating his calls for “Change” and “Hope”, while glossing over his lack of experience among other faults. No one could exactly call Obama a champion for gay rights, or a real sincere sounding voice for women’s rights, or a real stickler to keeping religion out of politics. The press didn’t call him out, but we at the Libertarian Dime did.

And now we have his presidency, a time for “Hope” and “Change” so goes the rhetoric. However, on the day after Obama was elected, I began telling people how disappointing he was going to be for those who either were looking for a far left agenda and/or the promise of change. For those on the right, I predicted Obama would “disappoint” them in the sense, that Obama will be far more centrist than the right was “hoping” for. I think on all counts I’ve been correct.

Obama has not been as liberal as some thought he would be. He has reached out to Republicans, he has increased the Faith Based Initiative programs, he has already put off for now allowing gays into the military, and in a moment of real symbolism, he waited until the day after the anniversary of Roe v Wade to overturn the “Mexico City Policy” that Republican presidents have enacted. When it came down to a stimulus package, those on the left were disappointed in the amount of “tax cuts” (I put that in quotes because there were no tax cuts in the bill, just tax credits). Some were disappointed that family planning funding was so easily cast aside to appease Republicans.

As for “Hope” and “Change”, well, Obama has failed to deliver either. From the first day of his presidency, he has been using the language of fear to ram the stimulus bill through Congress. When he speaks of the economy, he doesn’t talk about “Hope”, but instead tells everyone he can that unless we do “something” now, that the economy will become a catastrophe. Instead of inspiring Americans or educating Americans on how to deal with the recession, instead of talking about the great things that can come out of recessions, Obama has relied on fear, same as the Bush administration, to convince Americans to support his policies.

The Patriot Act was passed by using fear. The debacle known as TARP was passed by scaring everyone. Obama (and the Democrats) have not brought “change”. We’ve had eight years of encouraging people to buy by going into debt, eight years of budget busting spending, and eight years of “hit you over the head with it” fear mongering that has done little but expand the scope and power of government. Maybe the beneficiaries under Obama have different names, but from this libertarian’s seat, it all blends into the same non-change, non-hopeful blur.

I have been a libertarian for many years, but only recently have I considered myself a member of the Libertarian Party.  I supported Michael Bednarik in 2004 and I plan to vote for Bob Barr this year because I think the Libertarian Party is the party that best exemplifies true freedom for everyone.  During this past year, however, I have had to answer questions about Ron Paul.  Because he has wrapped his message with the language of liberty, many people have assumed (incorrectly) that he was a libertarian.  He has a long association  with the Libertarian Party including the 1988 botched presidential run.  However, he has remained a Republican, even when the lack of an opponent in his House race gave him the opportunity to run as a Libertarian if he really wanted to.

And now, Ron Paul, because of a personal squabble with Bob Barr, has decided to endorse a non-liberty candidate from a non-liberty party.   The reason for the squabble is simply that Barr wouldn’t pay Paul the “proper fealty” at Paul’s “historic” news conference September 10th.  This supposed snub has caused a lot of consternation around the Paul organization and the Barr campaign,  because of some undeserved exalted status some libertarians have placed upon Ron Paul.

I write this letter today, to the Libertarian Party, to say that it is time to just forget Ron Paul and move on.  He is not a libertarian and he is not pro-liberty.  Let’s recap:

* Ron Paul supports passing federal legislation to ban abortion because he believes it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception.  One shouldn’t forget that Paul doesn’t support evolution, rock solid science, but does support homeopathy, which is junk science

* Ron Paul supports eliminating any chance the Federal Courts can review marriage law.  This is done under the auspice of “freedom” but in reality it is an attempt to allow states to ban gay marriage

* Ron Paul doesn’t believe in a separation of Church and State, but instead believes in prayer in school and the Ten Commandments on federal buildings.

* Ron Paul believes states have the right to ban private acts between consenting adults as he angrily proclaimed in his response to Lawrence v Texas

* Ron Paul loves to talk about the Constitution but seems to ignore the 14th Amendment and the vast amount of case law behind it

* Ron Paul proclaims on his website the Constitution is “replete with references to God” when it is not

* Ron Paul talks a big game when it comes to presidential debate access, however in his own House primary, he refused to debate Chris Peden who was 6-8 times higher in most polls than Ron Paul ever was in his own presidential run

* Reason magazine has reported that Ron Paul laughs at the very idea of gay marriage

* Ron Paul has never once moved to impeach anyone in Congress or the President, while constantly talking about how everything is unconstitutional, because it would threaten his seniority

* In the last Congress, Ron Paul asked for more pork per constituent than Hillary Clinton, despite all the talk about spending

* Despite a reputation as “Dr. No”, Ron Paul has voted with the Republican party more than 70% of the time during his tenure, 76% in the last Congress

* Ron Paul has the third highest rate of missed votes in the House if you exclude people who have died or resigned

All in all, it’s a pretty pitiful record of liberty and freedom.  What I haven’t mentioned yet, is that Ron Paul has never authored a piece of legislation that has made it to law.  He has nothing to show for the cause of liberty.

One can not talk about Ron Paul without mentioning the newsletters he wrote in early 90’s.  I don’t care to rehash what he has said since 2000,  so I will simply quote an article from 1996, immediately after the newsletters first came to light:

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors.”

In conclusion, I see no reason why Ron Paul should continue to be revered inside the Libertarian Party.  The party is doing itself a great disservice by linking itself with someone who only superficially supports the ideas of the Libertarian Party, and someone with such a shady past.  While I hold no illusion that I hold any sway with the Libertarian Party, I simply ask that the party think deeply if it wants to continue to pay homage to Ron Paul

Sincerely,

Shane P. Brady