Elections are over. Iraq is in the dumps...as expected and is dominating the news as it plunges into something that can really only be called a civil war. No news there really. Many saw this coming as soon as Bush uttered the word "Iraq" while Afganistan was still being handled to find Bin Laden. The Iraq hawks were wrong then and there wrong now...though a little more humbled by reality...maybe.
Meanwhile back at home, the "Other Left", AKA, the "Classic Left", classical liberals, libertarians or left libertarians, free market liberals...whatever...are sitting quietly and observing to see what this new Dem Majority will bring. A fly-by reveals some of what's on our minds:
via www.freedomdemocrats.org,
we see an article by Roderick Long
http://freedomdemocrats.org/...
where Logan states:
Roderick T. Long argues that, despite claims by both right-libertarians and liberals, that there are libertarians out there that affiliate with the left. And rightly so.
I agree. And we feel our numbers are greater than most presume. We are not the loudest, nor the most visible, nor the one's with heavy influence in DC. The Modern activist base projects their agenda on the whole Left leaning and moderate center-left vote. Our issues and point of view rarely get much attention even though are very moderate and transpartisan. Too much action/reaction, not enough calm and caution.
Logan quotes Mr. Long who is speaking about liberal activist Barbara Ehrenreich’s book Nickel and Dimed and the plight of the working poor:
As I like to say, libertarianism is the proletarian revolution. Without all the taxes, fees, licenses, and regulations that disproportionately burden the poor, it would be much easier for them to start their own businesses rather than working for others. As for those who do still work for others, in the dynamically expanding economy that a rollback of state violence would bring, employers would have to compete much more vigorously for workers, thus making it much harder for employers to treat workers like crap. Economic growth would also make much higher wages possible, while competition would make those higher wages necessary. There would be other benefits as well; for example, Ehrenreich complains about the transportation costs borne by the working poor as a result of suburbanisation and economic segregation, but she never wonders whether zoning laws, highway subsidies, and other such government policies have anything to do with those problems.
Ah. Our number one wide-spread complaint said so succinctly. The unintended side effects and consequences of well-meaning but poorly conceived policies that cause more problems than they solve...often leading to the need for new "solutions". And it just snow-balls into a discombobulated mess and true cause and effect are lost. Sometimes removing interfence is better...not always but more often than people give credit for.
I strongly reccomend reading his whole article as he points out she misdiagnoses problems and offers bad solutions that will lead to more problems since she NEVER considers how statist policies have contributed to the problems she identifies. It's always more, more, more....never (exhale) let's go back and try something else.
Meanwile a poll by Club for Growth I stumbled upon via www.freeliberal.com
shows interesting info:
Club for Growth surveyed 800 likely voters in 15 competitive districts with Republican incumbents. When asked which party is doing a better job "eliminating wasteful spending," the Democrats led 39 percent to 25 percent. "Which party is ‘the party of big government?’ The Republicans, by an 11 point margin," Toomey moans.
well, yes. For many people, it IS about runaway spending and too much government interference...not just in private life but everywhere. This stat doesn't show up in a lot talks as to why the GOP lost so much support. It's there and deserves some attention.
Also from Free Liberal, Robert Capozzi gives kudos to Carl Mistead of Holistic Politics for his idea to cut SS taxes for lower wage eaners rather than instituting a Gas Tax like Tyler Cowen suggests as the Gas Tax will simply put even more burden on the poor.
Cowen's play like a "soak the poor, help the rich" idea. Milsted's: "protect the environment, help the poor, or at least keep them even."
I agree.
Finally, there is wave of protectionism taking strength in the Democratic Party and I find it worrisome. Higher tariffs on China, more subsidies for protected industries and more obstacles to moving low labor jobs overseas if a company sees fit is not going to make us competitive or save jobs...it may still cost jobs as companies lose market share. It will also simply raise prices on so many goods...hurting many low income consumers. This will help a small segment working in protected industries while raising prices on everyone. Just a thought.