Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Obviously, my idea of the center is fiscal conservative, social liberal. But a fiscal liberal, social conservative neocon might also argue that his or her position is in the center. I could see us both considering ourselves to be in "the center" but agreeing on virtually nothing.

Well, fiscal liberal - social conservative would not be very popular. I don't think anybody is going to make a serious attempt at that.

IMO the Libertarians are not that far off from what a lot of people want. The Republicans have managed to convince people the Ls are extremist versions of themselves, which is not really accurate at all. I think the Ls need to do several things to be taken seriously:
1. Do a much better job of differentiating themselves from Republicans
2. Appear more reasonable and willing to compromise to get things done, and/or do a better job of explaining how their philosophy will solve specific problems
3. Run more candidates that look the part -- a college degree helps
4. Involve more women
5. Find a charismatic leader

In short, they need to convince people they are viable. If they can do that, the fundraising will follow. I suspect they're in better position than a start-up party.

Gravy,

In concept, the Libertarian party might work, but their positions and most of the long-time supporters are a lot more hardcore in their beliefs in the lack of government intervention/participation/taxation/foreign affairs "isolation." I think there are enough in the middle who believe in at least some level of government safety net that in the end, the Libertarian party would not be quite compatible (or would result in a fight for the soul of the party, not unlike what happened to the Reform Party - which still exists - after Perot hung it up).

Two other intriguing parties that don't yet have the national organization yet are the Independence Party and the Moderate Party. (I don't like the party names in either case.) The Independence Party is intriguing because they are running a Senatorial candidate in Minnesota (against Norm Coleman and Al Franken).

Some more stuff to consider.

As a card-carrying, dues-paying libertarian, I'd like nothing better than for the libertarians to emerge as a party of significance.

I've seen polls sugesting that fiscal-conservative, social-liberal generally fits something like 56% of the US population. Right now, they're all compromising one side or the other to vote for either democrats or republicans.

At the risk of over-simplifying... Doesn't it seem likely that the emergence of a strong socially liberal, fiscally conservative party into a party system previously dominated by a socially & fiscally conservative party and a socially & fiscally liberal party would basically hand the government over to the socially & fiscally liberal party?

I tend to think it's a little more likely (but ONLY a little more likely) that a potential Obama victory would mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the social conservatives in the Republican party -- which I sort of see as inevitable as the younger generation(s) gain in electorate proportion and in power. That may effectively be about the same end game the libertarians are seeking. (and it's a change that would move me from a 90% Democratic voter to maybe 60/40 or something).

erice Wrote:At the risk of over-simplifying... Doesn't it seem likely that the emergence of a strong socially liberal, fiscally conservative party into a party system previously dominated by a socially & fiscally conservative party and a socially & fiscally liberal party would basically hand the government over to the socially & fiscally liberal party?

I tend to think it's a little more likely (but ONLY a little more likely) that a potential Obama victory would mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the social conservatives in the Republican party -- which I sort of see as inevitable as the younger generation(s) gain in electorate proportion and in power. That may effectively be about the same end game the libertarians are seeking. (and it's a change that would move me from a 90% Democratic voter to maybe 60/40 or something).

Not sure I'm following your logic in the first paragraph. If all that happened was a split of the fiscal conservative party into separate social conservative and social liberal parties, then you have a point. But if fiscal conservative, social liberals in the fiscal conservative party united with the fiscal coservative, social liberals in the social liberal party, I'm guessing it would become the dominant political force.

What I've read suggests that the actual breakdown of the US as a whole is about 50% fiscal-conservative/social-liberal, about 20% each fiscal-conservative/social-conservative and fiscal-liberal/social-liberal, and about 10% fiscal-liberal/social-conservative (neocon).

If you moved from 90% democrat to 60/40 (as you suggest in your second paragraph), and if others did likewise in what is now a pretty evenly divided electorate, I think you can see how that could create an extremely strong centrist party.

My mission statement for such a party looks something like:

1. Free trade.
2. Market-based social safety net. French-style health system--that is, government-funded but not government-provided--but you're more than welcome to keep your private insurance on top of that if you want. School choice and charters. EITC expansion to replace food stamps and other targeted programs.
3. Equal social (and thereby fiscal) rights. Recharacterization of "marriage" as "civil union." Churches are welcome to define "marriage" as they please, but to the US government, any consenting adult can enter into a partnership with another. But it won't matter for income taxes, because that's going to be done based on individual, rather than coupled, earnings. (I think the extent to which the marriage penalty affects women's labor force participation and earnings is really not understood at all.)
4. Lower/no corporate taxes. Surely someone can explain to people that corporations do not pay taxes. They are borne either by capital or by labor. To the extent we want to tax capital, let's tax capital; to the extent we want to tax labor, let's tax labor. But enough of this farce wherein we pretend that corporate taxes come from some profits black hole.
5. No industry-specific subsidies or taxes. I honestly have no idea what the net effect would be on oil and gas companies. I'm guessing it would be an increase, but I really don't care either way. Let our most productive industries rise to the top based on the merits alone.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

erice Wrote:At the risk of over-simplifying... Doesn't it seem likely that the emergence of a strong socially liberal, fiscally conservative party into a party system previously dominated by a socially & fiscally conservative party and a socially & fiscally liberal party would basically hand the government over to the socially & fiscally liberal party?

I tend to think it's a little more likely (but ONLY a little more likely) that a potential Obama victory would mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the social conservatives in the Republican party -- which I sort of see as inevitable as the younger generation(s) gain in electorate proportion and in power. That may effectively be about the same end game the libertarians are seeking. (and it's a change that would move me from a 90% Democratic voter to maybe 60/40 or something).

Not sure I'm following your logic in the first paragraph. If all that happened was a split of the fiscal conservative party into separate social conservative and social liberal parties, then you have a point. But if fiscal conservative, social liberals in the fiscal conservative party united with the fiscal coservative, social liberals in the social liberal party, I'm guessing it would become the dominant political force.

Yep, that first paragraph was a momentary departure of logic from my head (some might argue it's not momentary). Sorry about that.

amber34 Wrote:My mission statement for such a party looks something like:

1. Free trade.
2. Market-based social safety net. French-style health system--that is, government-funded but not government-provided--but you're more than welcome to keep your private insurance on top of that if you want. School choice and charters. EITC expansion to replace food stamps and other targeted programs.
3. Equal social (and thereby fiscal) rights. Recharacterization of "marriage" as "civil union." Churches are welcome to define "marriage" as they please, but to the US government, any consenting adult can enter into a partnership with another. But it won't matter for income taxes, because that's going to be done based on individual, rather than coupled, earnings. (I think the extent to which the marriage penalty affects women's labor force participation and earnings is really not understood at all.)
4. Lower/no corporate taxes. Surely someone can explain to people that corporations do not pay taxes. They are borne either by capital or by labor. To the extent we want to tax capital, let's tax capital; to the extent we want to tax labor, let's tax labor. But enough of this farce wherein we pretend that corporate taxes come from some profits black hole.
5. No industry-specific subsidies or taxes. I honestly have no idea what the net effect would be on oil and gas companies. I'm guessing it would be an increase, but I really don't care either way. Let our most productive industries rise to the top based on the merits alone.

This is a very good start. I would replace the income tax with a comnumption/sales tax.

erice Wrote:I tend to think it's a little more likely (but ONLY a little more likely) that a potential Obama victory would mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the social conservatives in the Republican party

I think we will see big changes in the Democratic party as a result of the Obama candidacy, win or lose.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:As a card-carrying, dues-paying libertarian, I'd like nothing better than for the libertarians to emerge as a party of significance.

I've seen polls sugesting that fiscal-conservative, social-liberal generally fits something like 56% of the US population. Right now, they're all compromising one side or the other to vote for either democrats or republicans.

Most Democrats I know living in my area really "differ" from Republicans only on abortion and Affirmative Action. The "War on Terror" or Iraq is not a real hot button issue to them. Neither is the Patriot Act, or "Global Warming." We all hate high taxes.

WMD Owl Wrote:Most Democrats I know living in my area really "differ" from Republicans only on abortion and Affirmative Action. The "War on Terror" or Iraq is not a real hot button issue to them. Neither is the Patriot Act, or "Global Warming." We all hate high taxes.

I probably differ from the republicans on abortion and the democrats on affirmative action. Actually my feelings on both issues probably differ from both republicans and democrats.

My feelings about Iraq and Afghanistan are the we shoud be either "in to win" or out.

I think the patriot act is a case of overkill, and most of the overkill really doesn't help us win a war on terror.

I have a lot of unanswered questions about global warming, and if most of the fear-mongers had properly maintained their scientific skepticism they would too. That being said, most of the prescriptions to cure global warming are good for us for other reasons too, and because of that we should be pursuing them with great vigor.

Taxes should be set high enough to generate 100% of the revenues needed to pay for budgeted expenditures. That's the only way that our esteemed lawmakers will ever have enough discipline to get control of expenditures. Given a choice between structuring the tax code to redistribute wealth and structuring it to minimize the negative impacts of taxes on growth, I would opt for growth over equality; as JFK said, a rising tide truly does lift all boats. Trickle-down didn't work because we never truly succeeded in creating that rising tide. We have lost the rising tide that once was the US economy, and nothing that Obama nor McCain has proposed will bring it back; until we bring that back, all the so-called "economic policies" are just playing games with ourselves.

Those ideas obviously aren't 100% libertarian, but I do think that the combination of libertarian principles plus common sense gets to most of them.

That's six issues. In terms of handling them, I'd give W an 0 for 6. As for proposals, I'd give Obama 0 for 6 and I'd give McCain 0 for 6. No wonder I simply can't come up with much optimism regarding our future, no matter who wins.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Taxes should be set high enough to generate 100% of the revenues needed to pay for budgeted expenditures. That's the only way that our esteemed lawmakers will ever have enough discipline to get control of expenditures. .

I am in general agreement with your first four paragraphs.

If we scrapped the income tax in favor of a national sales tax, I think it would act as a natural brake on spending, as any increase in the tax would would affect ALL citizens and EVERY lawmaker would have to face an electorate that was affected by his tax increase. I believe the cowards would rather control spending in that case.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:If we scrapped the income tax in favor of a national sales tax, I think it would act as a natural brake on spending, as any increase in the tax would would affect ALL citizens and EVERY lawmaker would have to face an electorate that was affected by his tax increase. I believe the cowards would rather control spending in that case.

I'm actually in favor of the approach to which Europe is evolving, led interestingly enough by most of the former iron curtain countries, who took generally similar approaches when they became free and suddenly had to implement tax plans for their newly freed markets. They brought in various teams of economic experts and gave them mandates to develop taxing schemes that would be favorable to growth. They all came up with the same general concept of a three-pronged tax system, each prong with the same flat rate across the board:

1. A payroll tax, paid 1/2 by employer and 1/2 by employee like our social security, with no upper limit on income,
2. A value added tax (VAT) or other form of general sales tax (GST), and
3. A tax on business profits, including all forms of business.

The rates work out in the 15% to 19% range for the eastern European countries. You have no 1040, no April 15, and while you don't completely get rid of the IRS, all taxes can be audited at the company level, so they concentrate solely on companies and seldom hassle individuals. By focusing on a much smaller number of taxpayers, their activities can be much more efficient, improving the taxpayer compliance rate and making tax evasion less likely. At 15%, the incentive to evade is a lot lower than it is at 40% or so, particularly if you know the enforcement activities are focused more squarely on you. Also at 15%, you don't need a lot of the current corporate tax welfare loopholes to allow US busineses to compete internationally. And the VAT/GST carries its own implicit tariff on imports and subsidy on exports, which US companies presently are not allowed to benefit from pursuant to GATT. Various nations in western Europe are adopting some or all of these concepts. For the US, the across-the-board rate to make this work is currently 15% (I've run the numbers), allowing for a Boortz-Linder prefund (like Milton Friedman's negative income tax) of 30% (sufficient to recover both the payroll and consumption taxes). What this means is that until your family income climbs above the poverty line, your total tax bill (including sales tax on your purchases) is a net refund.