College Football Very Taxing

by Neal McCluskey
This article appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on December 30, 2009.

It's almost New Year's Day, and that's great news if you like college football. If you don't enjoy it, however, turning on your bowl-clogged TV can make you feel as though you're paying a very steep price for college gridders.

But you're not just paying on New Year's -- it's all year round.

For those not fond of college football, the first source of your more-than-January-one pain is that bowls have been on since mid-December. The New Mexico Bowl and the St. Petersburg Bowl kicked off the bowl season on Dec. 19, and eighteen more games will have been played between then and New Year's Day. And the grid glut doesn't end on Jan. 1 any more. The national championship game won't be played until Jan. 7.

Of course, if the only cost to nonfans was listening to the din of announcers, grunting and whistles for a few weeks, and maybe having to forgo a little "American Idol," it wouldn't be that bad. But college football also costs you where it hurts -- your wallet.

For starters, many bowls receive generous taxpayer subsidies. According to Mark Yost, author of Varsity Green, seven bowls received more than $21.6 million in government aid between 2001 and 2005. And the majority of bowls are tax-exempt, supposedly because they're good for local tourism. That bowl executives often make big money and corporate sponsors get prominent advertising is apparently irrelevant.

Then, while playing in a bowl comes with a minimum payout of $750,000 for participating schools, many institutions end up spending much more than that to participate -- losses that taxpayers bear. READ MORE AT CATO

The Truth

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. "

Voltaire

Two Stand-up Guys for Liberty

by Nat Hentoff
This article appeared in the Trentonian on December 26, 2009.

Shortly after the horrendous crime of 9/11, I underlined the abuses of our constitutional liberties in the Patriot Act as it hurtled through Congress. During that steamrollered legislative process, I was briefly encouraged by a bitingly sardonic dissent from House Democrat David Obey of Wisconsin: "Why should we care? It's only the Constitution."

Someone did care and had the courage to say so publicly when others in Congress remained silent lest they be accused, during re-election campaigns, of being soft on terrorism. In the Senate, there was only a single vote against the Patriot Act, Democrat Russell Feingold, also of Wisconsin.

Obey and Feingold are both believers in the idea that dissent is patriotic. They have remained staunchly independent. Obey, now the third-most senior member of the House, is currently chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, and characteristically, he is not automatically supporting President Obama's military buildup in Afghanistan.

READ MORE @ CATO

Great Historical Quotes

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. "

Thomas B. Reed (1886)

A War We Can't Afford

by Doug Bandow
This article appeared in the National Interest (Online) on January 4, 2010.

The U.S. government is broke. Nevertheless, Washington is currently fighting two wars: one is ebbing while the other is expanding. How to pay for the Afghan build up? Democrats say raise taxes. Republicans say no worries. The best policy would be to scale back America's international commitments.

The United States will spend more than $700 billion on the military in 2010. The administration's initial defense-budget proposal, minus the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, was $534 billion, almost as much as total military spending by the rest of the world. Even though the Iraq war is winding down, its costs will persist for years as the government cares for thousands of seriously injured veterans.

Afghanistan cost about $51 billion in 2009 and had been expected to run $65 billion in 2010. However, the president's build up is estimated to add another $30 billion annually. And if this "surge" doesn't work—U.S. troop levels still lag well behind the minimum number indicated by Pentagon anti-insurgency doctrine—the administration will feel pressure to further increase force levels. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion.

READ MORE AT CATO

The D.C. Snow Job

Social networks, video sharing, and blogs expose Washington, D.C.'s lying police department and their media enablers.

Radley Balko

As a blizzard dumped more than a foot of snow on Washington, D.C. last month, a group of youngish, well-wired hipsters gathered in the city's gentrifying U-Street corridor for a mass snowball fight. The idea originated and gained momentum on the social networking site Twitter. That's significant, because by the time it was all over, the Snowball Fight Heard 'Round the World became an apt demonstration of how social networking, easy access to publishing software, and the all-around democratization of technology is blowing open the filtered, narrowly-bored traditional channels of information, helping make both government and traditional media more accountable.

The December 19 snowball fight took an ugly turn when snowballers pelted a red Hummer making its way through the snow-packed intersection of 14th and U Streets in Northwest Washington, a part of the city with some historical turbulence, including the 1968 riots. The driver, D.C. police Detective Mike Baylor, emerged from his vehicle in plain clothes, and without identifying himself as a police officer confronted the snowballers. Baylor unholstered his gun, bringing more derision and insults to an already heated confrontation (including the chant “don’t bring a gun to a snowball fight”). Snowballers and observers quickly began calling 911 about a man waving a gun at the intersection. That brought uniformed cops to the scene, one of whom had also (understandably, at that point) drawn his weapon. Baylor detained one person, attorney Daniel Schramm, whom the detective falsely accused of hitting him with a snowball.

Within hours, video of the altercation popped up all over the Internet (including from Reason.tv's Dan Hayes, who was on the scene). By the morning of December 20, anyone with an Internet connection could see from multiple angles shot by multiple video cameras and cell phones that not only did Det. Baylor wave his gun, he also admitted it. Baylor is now under investigation. He's been stripped of his badge and gun, and may lose his job.

READ MORE @ CATO

Libertarians release top 10 disasters of 2009 Obama administration

Note similarities to previous administration

Top 10 disasters of the 2009 Obama administration (in no particular order):

1. Cash for Clunkers
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus package
6. Expansion of "state secrets" doctrine
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Geithner as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Top 10 disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration:

1. Cash for Car Companies
2. War in Iraq
3. Giant Medicare expansion bill
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
5. Stimulus "rebate" checks
6. PATRIOT Act
7. Big increase in unemployment
8. "Bailout" Paulson as Treasury Secretary
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
10. Huge federal deficits

Wes Benedict, Libertarian Party Executive Director, commented, "Republicans and Democrats keep expanding government and creating more and more problems. We're encouraging as many Libertarians as possible to run for Congress in 2010. In Texas, the state with the earliest filing deadline, Libertarians have already filed for 31 of 32 Congressional seats."

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 and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

RED, WHITE, AND SACREBLEU

How American Wines Shocked the World

Upholding the Right Not To Be Offended

The First Amendment protects even the ugliest forms of speech

Steve Chapman

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. The following column was originally published in January 2006.

It's hard to describe the views of the Rev. Fred Phelps without feeling soiled by the association, but I'll do it anyway. He attests that God is disgusted with America's tolerance of homosexuality. In his view, the Almighty is punishing the nation by using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to kill American troops in Iraq. God wants our soldiers dead.

Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., is not content to deliver this message to his congregation. He also communicates it in the least welcoming venue he can find: the funerals of men and women who died in combat. He and his parishioners have staged protests at more than 60 military funerals, holding signs with messages like "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags."

These vicious demonstrations have elicited a predictable but mistaken response: demands that they be outlawed. Kansas passed a law banning such protests for one hour before a funeral begins and two hours after it ends. As lieutenant governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn pushed a law requiring demonstrators to stay far away from such a service.

Quinn sees the issue as simple. "No grieving military family should be subjected to vile epithets and signs at the funeral service of their loved one who has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country," he declared. The bill, he said, would merely uphold "the First Amendment religious rights of families to bury their dead with reverence." READ MORE REASON

The Definition of Freedom

"If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. "

Jacob Hornberger (1995)

Great Libertarian Quotes

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet. "

Lyle Myhr

Free Speech v. The Federal Election Commission

Raymond Raad on Health Care Reform and Medical Innovation

LP Monday Message: My New Year's Resolutions

posted by Staff on Jan 04, 2010

January 4, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

I resolve to persevere in the struggle for freedom that many Americans have undertaken tirelessly, and in some cases have given their lives for.

I resolve to vote for Libertarian candidates whenever I can.

I resolve to keep reminding people that every vote for a Libertarian makes a difference.

I resolve to thank Libertarians who amplify their voice for liberty by running for office.

I resolve to congratulate Libertarian candidates who win their races, and thank Libertarian candidates who did not win but helped to spread the Libertarian message and to lay the groundwork for future Libertarian wins.

I resolve to thank Libertarian volunteers who help the Libertarian Party and our candidates in whatever ways they can.

I resolve not to forget that Republicans voted for the banker bailouts and Medicare expansion, and that Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

I resolve not to be fooled by "independent" organizations who say they want to "take back government for the people," but who really just want to use government power for their own purposes.

I resolve to keep the Libertarian Party door open for those who have worked through other organizations to promote liberty, but decided they might get a bigger bang for their buck working through the Libertarian Party.

I resolve to contribute financially to the National LP, and to at least one state and county affiliate, and to at least one Libertarian Party candidate.

Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so, please click here and join the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. If you need to renew, please click here. If you would like to make a contribution separate from membership, please click here.

Neither Left Nor Right

by Doug Carkuff

I have always taken it as a good thing that libertarians are detested by both the left and the right. To me it is proof positive that we libertarians are in the right. After all, both the left and the right are fundamentally the same – authoritarian statists who wish to use the force of government to make society in their own images and to compel others to live in ways that they approve of. And let’s be honest, both the left and the right do truly hate us and whatever we may ostensibly have in common with either – say free markets with the right and human rights with the left (of course neither really supports either except in qualified and conditional ways) – what they find detestable about us involves fundamental differences which can never be overcome as long as they remain "left" and "right," as long as they remain wedded to that dialectic.

I’ll be honest, at this point in my life I find political philosophy to be tiresome or maybe I have just become tired and lazy. Beyond considering the merits of minarchism versus anarchism I don’t like to go much into any of it anymore. Debates about the implications of the privatization of this particular thing versus government control of that seem to me pointless. From my perspective, if you believe you own your own life, if you believe in liberty, there is nothing to debate. You are never going to convince anyone who doesn’t believe in or understand liberty in a meaningful way to come over to your side. At best, the arguments will all be utilitarian in nature and both sides are going to make counter arguments which are often essentially meaningless – what if this scenario occurred or what would happen in that particular circumstance.

Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy watching YouTubes of my libertarian heroes – most associated with Lew’s site and Mises and way too many to mention. And, of course, the great Dr. Paul – but when I see a libertarian debate a statist of whatever stripe the futility of it is tiring. It is as though they are talking different languages. It is particularly trying when I see what we often refer to as a "beltway libertarian" (think Cato, Reason) debating a main stream "progressive" or a main stream "conservative." The feeling I get is that they are pretending at disagreeing, both of them really committed to never changing anything fundamentally.

The bottom line is that I have been troubled by the inability of libertarians in general to make any substantial inroads into the minds and hearts and thinking of most Americans, which is fairly ironic when you consider that the values on which this country was founded and the values continually espoused when speaking reverently about this country are distinctly libertarian values. Funny how they sound so foreign and unfathomable (and dangerous), except in the abstract, to so many devoted Americans. It’s fine to talk about dedication to liberty, but it’s something else altogether to actually consider living by the principles of liberty. It strikes me that whenever libertarians and those who are suspicious of libertarians talk they invariably talk past each other. It strikes me that our approach as libertarians has been off the mark. We are never going to win by talking principles and philosophy. The only way we are going to reach those who can not hear us now is to show them what they are missing and what they are losing by being afraid to seriously consider liberty and the kind of world they could inhabit by embracing the principles of liberty. READ MORE AT LEW ROCKWELL

Great Historical Quotes

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."

Voltaire

The Truth

"Washington is not America. It has become an alien city-state that rules America, and much of the rest of the world, in the way that Rome ruled the Roman Empire. "

Richard Maybury

Laboratories of Repression

We don’t let the states “experiment” on the First Amendment. Should the Second Amendment receive any less respect?

Damon W. Root

In 1932, progressive Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis penned one of the most famous passages in American jurisprudence. “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,” Brandeis wrote in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, “that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory, and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Since then, Brandeis’ famous words have been quoted or referenced countless times, appearing everywhere from legal documents to campaign speeches. Most recently, they surfaced in the arguments leading up to the landmark Second Amendment case McDonald v. Chicago, which the Supreme Court is set to hear in early March 2010.

At issue in the case is Chicago’s draconian handgun ban, a restriction that largely mirrors the gun control law struck down last year by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The key difference is that Heller only decided whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right against infringement by the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). McDonald will settle whether the amendment’s right to keep and bear arms applies against state and local governments as well.

That’s where Brandeis comes in. In Chicago’s view, the Second Amendment should have no impact on its vast gun control regime. As the city has argued to the Court, “Firearms regulation is a quintessential issue on which state and local governments can ‘serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.’” Thus, Chicago claims it should enjoy “the greatest flexibility to create and enforce firearms policy”

READ MORE REASON

Great American Quotes

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here? "

Paul Harvey 8/31/94

'Withdrawal Tax': How to Stick It to the Big Banks That Got Bailed Out, and Make Money While You're at It. Pass It On!

by Gary North

The Huffington Post has come up with a nice little protest movement. Let's pull our money out of the bailed-out banks and put it in local banks that lend to locals. Who are the locals? People just like us.

This makes sense economically. If you ever want a loan, get it from your own banker. If it's a local bank, you will be treated well.

The FDIC insures all accounts up to $250,000. Your money is as safe in a local bank as a bailed-out mega-bank.

The folks at Huffington are on the Left. But we can all agree when we see insider bailouts like the ones in September and October 2008.

They have produced a video. This video is biased, mean-spirited, and simplistic; I love it! The more of these low-budget YouTube videos on the Big Bank bailout, the better.

The bankers are on the defensive. Let's keep them there.

On the causes of America's Great Depression, we should blame the Federal Reserve System in the late 1920s – not the early 1930s, contrary to Milton Friedman. On this point, read Prof. Roger Garrison's review of Murray Rothbard's book, The authors – Mrs. Huffington and former Chief Economist of the Senate Banking Committee, Rob Johnson – have had enough.

The Huffington Post article is here. The authors – Mrs. Huffington and former Chief Economist of the Senate Banking Committee, Rob Johnson – have had enough.

They do not call this a bank run. They call it a withdrawal tax. I like that.

Michael D. Tanner & Michael F. Cannon dissect Obama's health care plans.

Baucus: No Senator Understands This Health Care Bill

NICE! WHAT DO WE PAY THEM FOR?

Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

Samuel Adams

Reason.tv's Nanny of the Year 2009!

Worst. Decade. Ever.

Not Quite the 'Decade from Hell'

by Gene Healy

Friday brings an end to a decade most Americans will be glad to see the back of. What's to like about a 10-year span that started with an embarrassingly botched election, moved on to the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history and ended with a harrowing financial crisis?

The "Aughties" were awful. But all the media-driven doom and gloom is getting a little out of hand. Yes, it was a rotten 10 years for America. But cheer up: Things aren't as bad as they seem, and there's a good chance they'll get better.

This was the "decade from hell," Andy Serwer proclaims in a recent Time cover story: a period of economic apocalypse and unrelenting terror, "the most dispiriting and disillusioning decade Americans have lived through in the post-World War II era."

Holy hyperbole, hackman. Has Serwer never heard of the "misery index," the measure of unemployment plus inflation that Ronald Reagan used to pummel Jimmy Carter in the 1980 race? At 11.84, it's at its decade-long peak right now, but it hit 22 in Carter's last months and busted Obama's record in four of the last six decades.

Surely the 1930s -- the decade that saw Hitler's rise to power and a U.S. unemployment that routinely passed 20 percent -- has to count as more "dispiriting" than the 2000s. And how about the '60s -- a decade of assassinations, vicious race riots, rising crime and a pointless war that killed more than 50,000 Americans? READ THE REST