Progressives for Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Tulsi Gabbard Needs Your Support

2019-05-09T04:48:00.000-07:00

Tulsi Gabbard's campaign is the mirror image of what this blog advocated for Ron Paul's in 2012. Libertarians and libertarian leaning Republicans and independents ought to support her campaign. Even with Bill Weld in the race, Ron Paul apparently agrees:

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ron-paul-says-tulsi-gabbard-is-the-best-chance-for-peace

Macroning the American Body Politic

2018-10-12T12:49:00.001-07:00

Almost election day... here we go again. Democrats think they have the momentum. Given it's a midterm, it should be so. However, the anti-Trump party has little imagination, so I predict little change.

Regardless of what happens next month, the 2020 political vision of the status quo is clear: Americans are angry and tired of being angry; convince voters that extremism is the problem and repackage imperial corporatism as the moderate, sensible, centrist, bipartisan voice of independent American leadership in the world.

This strategy gets played out in one of two ways. First a "moderate" take over of the Democratic Party facilitated by the migration of disaffected Bush/ McCain/ Romney pragmatists from the GOP, resulting in the nomination of a Harris/ Warner type ticket.

A more likely scenario is to allow the Sanders/ Warren/ Gabbard progressives to have their day but form a bipartisan, "centrist ticket" led by No Labels/ Americans Elect/ Change the Rule to steer America away from the extremists who want to take us over the cliffs of insanity.

Of course, the policy platform of this Macronesque messiah will differ zero in actuality from the current duopoly's austerity, empire-building and maintenance program.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, except in tone and at much lower decibels. All that remains to ask: will it be Haley/Warner or McCaskill/Corker?

Why Populist Poser is Prez and Dems Are Playing Russian Roulette

2017-07-25T04:10:00.005-07:00

As far as I know the general election exit polls never asked the questions: "If you voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, who did you vote for today?" Had the sophisticates of the mainstream media and the unbiased analysts of the polling agencies asked that question, you and the Russian Roulette press would know why Donald Trump is now our president.

One year ago Michael Moore wrote these prescient words:

The Jesse Ventura Effect. Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the ‘90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump.

Here and elsewhere I tried to talk folks into a different strategy. Rather than kamikaze the nation by voting for Trump or staying at home because there's nothing better to do or voting for a war-mongering, say-anything-to-get-elected candidate, I advised vote for Jill Stein.

And now we have Donald Trump. Of course the play on this is "Nader!" But had all those Sanders voters who went kamikaze in those key midwestern states instead gone tacticallyand/or principled Green, Hillary Clinton would now be our president.

And across America...
had the despairing bothered to check in and vote with their hearts,
and
had the headless Sanderistas who voted for the guy who told them to vote for Clinton instead voted for the Jewish woman,
President Clinton would have a Green thorn in her Democratic side.
And this Green thorn might even be getting federal matching funds in 2020.

And the Democratic party and their MSM pigeons would not be playing Russian Roulette.

Ho Hum, Let's All Be Dumb

2017-01-07T14:28:00.003-08:00

I did not vote for Donald Trump. His racist, sexist, and xenophobic rhetoric, his southern strategy on steroids may or may not reflect his heart but if it doesn't, his opportunistic methods make him, in my opinion, unfit to serve in any public office, let alone the presidency.

The hypocritical support he won from fundamentalists and right wing evangelical leaders is also immensely disheartening to me as a Christian and a pastor. His impulsivity worries me greatly and I fear that he will do something extremely foolish.

All this said, the new red scare tactics of the Democrats troubles me even more. I assume the Russian government is capable of hacking the DNC and I take for granted that our discredited intelligence services got it right this time.

Even if the Russians hacked the DNC for the purpose of undermining Clinton, it is ludicrous to believe that the American people were any more influenced by Russian subterfuge than they were by the corporate propaganda that has determined every election for the last 40 plus years.

Of course I expect the Democratic party to make Trump into an evil monster the same way the Republican party did Obama. This is the same old smoke and mirrors, bait and switch game that successfully distracts Americans with cultural issues that are never going to make a difference in their economic lives.

For all the hysteria about our deeply divided government, the evidence shows that on all major economic and foreign policy issues, the two parties are in agreement. We serve the interest of transnational corporations, and any claim to the contrary is a bump to pick your pocket.

So please when someone starts going bonkers about Russia influence, remind them of how we hacked Angela Merkel's email and tell them to google Stuxnet. Gore Vidal was right. We are the United States of Amnesia.

And no... I don't think that inauguration day demonstrations are going to change anyone's mind about anything. What we need to do is ask our Democratic senators and representatives to do the right thing and offer this deal to the Donald:

Deeply cut or completely eliminate all payroll taxes and double or triple the COLA for seniors each of the next 8 years. Tell him we want to block grant $2 trillion in new infrastructure spending. Grant him the low ball compromise of $1 trillion, but if he wants to simply flatten corporate income taxes and subsidize the purchase of public infrastructure, filibuster him the rest of his time in office.

Of course there is no way the bi-partisan austerity fetish is going to be replaced with simple,clear policy that would put money in every American's pocket. We are more likely to get a bogus loophole-closing, fair share everywhere tax reform package that brings the top rate back down to 36%, or maybe so the Democrat's can claim victory, 37%.

Yeah... we will likely get an $8 an hour minimum wage that covers everyone making less than $25K with a promise to raise it to $10 by 2021 if inflation rises above 5% annually.
An infrastructure stimulus that privatizes large chunks of new toll roads will keep unemployment from soaring and provide just enough consumer confidence to allow interest rates to climb and credit card purchases to soar. We might see the unemployment rate rise to 6 percent by 2018 but be back down to 5.6 percent by 2020.

Trump will boast that he has created 12 million new jobs and the Democrats will argue that it was only 10 million and real wages have fallen. Half of America will say they are better off than they were 4 years ago and we will get Trump back in office while Democrats retake Senate and House by a slim margins.

Abortion rates will remain the same and gay people will still get married and divorced just like straight people. A few more people will be able to buy guns. The death penalty will be less popular but African-American and Hispanic men will get the needle at the same rate they are now, more often than white guys. Trump will be on his way to breaking Obama's deportation record, Raul Castro will die, and Mormons will build a hotel in Havana.

Does anybody want any more no-brainer predictions? The honeymoon with Putin will be over in less than 2 years. Drone and cyber warfare will increase on all fronts. Ok... enough.

As cynical as I sound, I still think there is hope but it is going to take some out-of-the-box effort and a huge amount of patience. Next time... a strategy. And if enough Trump populists figure out they've been had, it just might work.

Stay tuned.

Saving Bernie Busters from Themselves and the World from Clintonian Plutocracy

2016-06-08T05:55:00.000-07:00

There will be denial for days and maybe weeks to come, but in the end Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Could things have been different with all open primaries, more polling places and less voter suppression? Certainly!

Sadly, none of that matters now. Yes, we need to reform the process of future nominations but right now we need to deal with the reality that Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

Yes, you heard that right, my Bernie or Bust friends. Every time you make claims to the contrary, hundreds of Sanders supporters decide to keep Trump out by voting for Clinton.

It is time to stop the futile call to defeat Hillary Clinton as punishment for all the dirty political chicanery she has used to deny Sanders the nomination.

Sadly, painfully, but undeniably, we are stuck with her. She is a war-mongering, corporate-pandering puppet for the status quo, but she will be our next president.

The strategy of trying to scare Democrats into voting for Sanders for fear of her not being able to defeat Donald Trump has clearly failed and further use of it is going to backfire in a landslide victory over the weakest camdidate the GOP has ever produced.

What Bernie or Busters need to focus on now is persuading as many Sanders supporters as possible to send her and the Democratic party a clear message: No more Libyas and no more Wall Street dominance over the treasury and treasures of our country.

The only way to make this happen is to threaten her with 8 million progressive votes for Jill Stein this year and the prospect of 20 million four years from now. She will not listen to reason or passion or to voters who stupidly write in votes for a candidate who supports her and does not want to be a write-in candidate.

She will, however listen to 10 million progressives breathing down her neck and the way to make that happen us to get Jill Stein above 5% this November.

The way to get the Green Party over the threshold for federal matching funds in the next presidential election is to persuade enough Sanders supporters that they can vote their consciences twice without spoiling the election and making Trump the president.

Let me be clear... this is not about promoting the Green Party; this about keeping the peaceful green economy at the forefront of our national agenda. This is about agreeing with Bernie Sanders' assessment that nothing short of a political revolution will bring about the democratic change that we need to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility.

Clinton must be radically transformed or at least sufficiently restrained if we are to have a chance of not being the permanent victims of global corporate totalitarianism. 5 million uncounted votes for an undeclared and uncertified write-in candidate will only embolden the puppeteers who pull her strings.

Fortunately, all of the fuss about the danger of not voting for the lesser evil is made a moot point not only by the gift of Donald Drumpf but because the Libertarian Party, in nominating two very popular former governors, will give both establishment voters and pissed off Paulians an option which will more than offset Green defections. And if Gary Johnson and William Weld are not status quo enough, clandestine Clintonites or Romney write- ins will do the trick of denying Trump 10 million votes.

In short, the approach should be: let's keep the pressure on by dismissing the barely remote possibility of a Trump White House and liberating Sanderistas from sheep dogging fears.

Let's get it done now!

Support but Do Not Vote For Rand Paul in the Primary (unless you are a Libertarian or a Republican)

2015-04-30T08:13:00.001-07:00

Now that Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he will run as a Democrat for the presidency, I want to make it clear to all liberals, progressives, populists, socialists, etc. that I will not vote for or encourage anyone to vote for Rand Paul in the Republican primaries and caucuses next year.

This may come as a disappointment for many of my libertarian friends but 2016 is very different from 2012. We do not have an incumbent President who is running unopposed. Just as it made absolutely no sense for most progressives to vote in the Democratic primary last time, it makes no sense to vote in the Republican primary this time.

I am not at this moment endorsing Sanders because I want to see what other progressives do and say. I think it would be better if only one progressive took on Hillary or if more than one, that they coalesce around one progressive alternative no later than February 21 ( the day after the SC primary).

This is not to say, give no support to Rand Paul. On the contrary, we ought to be promoting his campaign and maybe trying to find a way to get him and Bernie to debate during the primary. Wouldn't that be a great way to kick the establishment?!! Better yet get presumptive 3rd party nominees, Virgil Goode, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on the same stage along with whoever emerges as the Republican cultural conservative favorite.

What we want is Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders to be the nominees and if not them, then for Paul, Sanders and Ben Carson to endorse Johnson, Stein and Goode at 5pm the evenings of Jeb and Hillary's coronation speeches.

A political revolution to overthrow the corporate military industrial catastrophe remains the strategic goal but we must make this tactical change at this time for the revolution to have a fighting chance of success.

PS ... I use names here as possibilities. I do not think that Jeb Bush will be the GOP nominee. In fact I think the Republican ticket is going to be Susana Martinez and Ben Carson. Hopefully, Clinton takes a dive and we get a Sanders/Warren ticket to oppose them. If we do, I will be expecting Robin Koerner to tell Gary , "No!" and support the Red Democrat ticket instead. (Is red a classical liberal color?)

Return to P4RP

2015-04-17T10:44:00.002-07:00

A spike in visits which correspond with Rand Paul's recently announced presidential campaign compels me to return to P4RP. I don't intend to be back long but I do feel the need to let you know my thoughts about his candidacy.

To get right to the main question: Will I promote progressives support for Rand Paul? The answer is both yes and not yet.

YES...
Among likely GOP candidates, Rand Paul is the best. Sure, this is not saying much especially given his latest support of the anti-peace letter to Iranian leadership and his advocacy of a sharp increase in military spending paid for by cuts in foreign aid and domestic investments. This may not mean a neo-con turn but election time feints to the MIC will win him no friends among peace progressives even as it confirms doubts among purist libertarians.

Nevertheless, a strong showing in the Republican primaries and caucuses will be a significant blow to warmongering corporatists throughout the duopoly. A libertarian coup of the GOP remains a consummation devoutly to be wished by all principled progressives. A victory in this year's battle still seems unlikely for all the same reasons as last go around with his father but any damage done to the imperial oligarchy is not only desirable but necessary. Democrats who are already showing their cards for Queen Clinton by trashing him deserve resistance from all real progressives.

NOT YET...
But should support mean primary votes? While my friend, Robin Koerner, wants a resounding yes, we need to wait and see what challengers rise to confront the Queen. It is likely that there will be a progressive or two who step up. Bernie Sanders (now a socialist independent), Elizabeth Warren (the most populist and popular progressive) and Martin O'Malley (former Maryland Governor) are all possibilities. I am hoping that Ron Paul's friend, Dennis Kucinich gets in the race as his NEED Act (HR 2990) is a definitive document that gets at the heart of our economic problems.

Progressives need to challenge Hillary by voting for one or more of these or other potential candidates who hopefully give voice to the disaffected base of the the Democratic Party. This is not the year for jumping ship during the primaries. If, in the unlikely circumstance Clinton faces no progressive opposition, then I will be back here or somewhere else encouraging progressives to vote for Rand Paul in the primaries.

Another unlikely scenario is Paul getting the nomination and facing Clinton in the general election. In that circumstance I am going to want to support Paul and if there is no viable Green or independent candidate from the left, I would most likely encourage progressives to vote for him. I would first like to see a reversal on his latest vows to make deeper domestic cuts to support more military spending. There may be a way around this by finding more cuts in MIC spending to fund pay and benefit increases for enlisted personnel. Or maybe he takes a cue from Koerner and stops worrying about government deficits and finds a way to increase government spending to bring down private sector debt.

IN THE MEANTIME...
Progressives need to take more radical stands against the Democratic Party's corporate captivity and be more creative about making alliances with other anti-corporate outsiders. We need leaders like Kucinich, Sanders and Warren to not only stand up to Hillary and her corporate puppeteers but to be extremely skeptical when her rhetoric shifts leftward. My idea continues to be... when the inevitable happens and coronation night arrives, go public at 5pm endorsing the Green Party nominee. The MSM would not be able to ignore a dozen progressive leaders with 3 or 4 of them being primary opponents of the Queen, defiling her party by endorsing Jill Stein, especially if one of them is her running mate.

I know...I know... totally unconventional...not going to happen. Of course, in all likelihood, we are not going to provoke politicians even at the periphery of their parties to chance backlash because of what will surely be seen as a kamikaze move. I understand the harsh realism as I have been ignored by anybody and everybody inside corporate fortress. But what else do we have other than handing a grenade to whoever's reaching out between the bars. This tactic would work even better if it were coordinated and Rand got his Dad, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, etc. standing behind him and Gary Johnson as Paul endorses Johnson.

It will take something as dramatic as well timed defections by widely recognized anti-corporate politicians to force the moment to its crisis. Pulling that off requires that outsiders come together with a willingness to step outside the box they landed in when they stepped out of the corporate box. If we are to make a difference in the upcoming election, we have to get sympathetic candidates and voters to consider unconventional, mutual and cross party endorsements, vote swapping, etc. We are outgunned millions of times over and so we need guerrilla tactics and risk taking and realistic politicians and voters if we expect to make a real and significant difference.

I might come back again if you like.

Thanks and Moving On

2012-12-25T19:08:00.001-08:00

I want to thank you, for your support in reading this blog over the last 2 years. I am not sure that I have made much of an impact but if anything I wrote here was meaningful to just one of my readers, I am forever glad I did it.

I'm moving on to something else but not so much different either. Come join me again if you like. My first post on the new blog: http://usamultipartycoaltion.blogspot.com/

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Avoiding Moral Hazard While Reducing Debt

2012-11-03T07:52:00.000-07:00

There is a way to avoid moral hazard and bring about much needed debt relief. Simply require that the principal on all loans be reduced by 10% plus reapplying 80% of all paid interest to the principal of those loans. Apply this to all loans, whether mortgage, business, auto, credit card, student or other personal loans. Cap the value of principal reductions at $250K per person and refund the losses to banks and credit unions who have not received TARP funds. Banks which have received TARP funds have already been compensated in advance by tax payers. In additions we should re-instate Glass-Stegall and put in place universally binding usury laws.

The Federal Reserve should be abolished and replaced by constitutionally authorized agency of the congress which is not permitted to increase the money supply more than one percentage above the unemployment rate and not allowed to loan money at more than twice or less than half the inflation rate. This rate will be referred to as the congressional lending rate. The prime rate at which banks borrowing from the congress can lend to other banks and credit agencies should be not less than half and not more than twice the congressional rate. Loans to businesses and for home mortgages shall not exceed twice the prime rate. Interest on personal and auto loans shall not exceed 3 times the prime rate and interest on credit card and all other loans shall not exceed 4 times the prime rate.

Moving Forward: A Coalition Strategy for Winning a Peaceful Revolution

2012-09-08T21:37:00.000-07:00

The Democrats and Republicans finished their conventions trying to convince us that they are the party of the middle class and of course they are since we are all middle class, aren’t we? Now that we know they are on our side economically, they can get on with the much more consequential cultural debates so we can find out which one is going to protect our unborn gay children and which one will protect a woman’s right to choose her child’s sexual orientation.

We will have a president and it is most likely to be Barack Obama. The only question is: how much money will be spent by the GOP to lose the race? At least that’s about as interesting as corporate media coverage will be.

All kidding aside, Ron Paul libertarians, if they know what’s good for their movement, will vote for Gary Johnson, especially in Red swing states so as to punish the powers which silenced them. They might even get a bit more sophisticated and vote for Obama in Red States so as to humiliate those same powers with a landslide loss.

As it stands, unless Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and their running mates get in the debates, we can expect popular vote results along these lines:

Obama: 48% Romney: 46% Johnson: 4% Stein: 1% Others:1%

If the debates are inclusive of the Green and Libertarian candidates, we could see something like this:

Obama: 44% Romney: 39% Johnson: 10% Stein: 5% Others: 2%

Obviously the latter results would send the strongest signal to both parties that their corporatism is no longer invulnerable. This message gets even louder if Johnson can win Nevada and/or New Mexico and Stein can win Vermont.

Something more like the former results are more likely since libertarians and progressives are not organized enough to get their candidates in the debates.

If libertarians and progressives decide to continue going their separate ways next time, they might share as much as 20% of the popular vote and if they come to their senses and do what I continue to advocate, go full blown fusion coalition, they will get not less than 29%, and if they come to their senses before the midterm and execute a congressional coalition strategy of crossover voting and mutual endorsements, they stand a real chance of slaying the two headed corporate beast in 2016.

Of course there is a chance that the GOP comes to its senses and puts Rand Paul on the ticket in 2016. You can be certain that any libertarian on that ticket will be VP, not P. More likely the GOP will go with something more traditional like Huckabee/Martinez in 2016 and that kind of ticket could win enough women and Latinos to get them in the White House through 2024. Progressives cannot expect to gain any more ground without a coalition partner, and by 2024, we will probably all be corporatists.

Let’s imagine for a second that libertarians and progressives come to their senses on November 7. What are the tactics for creating a coalition revolution in 2016?

First, create a platform consisting of civil liberties, constitutional rights, non interventionist foreign policy, bold reductions in militaristic and false security spending, domestic reductions through cabinet consolidation, and creative compromises on economic policies. The last will be the most difficult and therefore the most important.

The components of these creative economic policy compromises are: 1.) Splitting 50/50 all gains from budget reductions and revenue increases between debt reduction and population based block grants to states and/or local governments. 2.) Setting a goal of shifting in 8 years time not less $4 trillion and not more than $10 trillion out of Washington through debt reductions and block grants. 3.) A gradual shifting of funding sources for block grants from federal toward state and local levels through diminishing federal matching funds. 4.) Moving monetary authority from the Fed to congress. 5.) Increased allowance for liberalized legal tender laws which make room for greater competitive and complementary currencies in the consumer market place.

Second, with this platform in place use it to find, endorse and promote Senate and House candidates who agree with it, and in doing so avoid pitting libertarian and progressive candidates against one another.

Third, aim to get 40 coalition Senators and 174 coalition Representatives in 2014 and 60/218 in 2016.

Fourth, focus on open and vulnerable seats in 2014 and contest or reaffirm at least 80% of all congressional seats in 2016.

Fifth, bring together coalition convention sponsored by the GP and the LP and any other interested citizen groups, which meets to endorse a coalition presidential ticket. This convention should be held the weekend after the Democrats and Republicans have their shows. If holding it that late prevents the ticket from being on the ballot in all 50 states hold it in between or before the corporate duopoly conventions.

Sixth, support through crossover voting and mutual endorsements libertarian candidates in red states and districts, and progressive candidates in blue states and districts.

Seventh, run 2 presidential candidates inside the corporate parties and 2 outside the corporate parties. When the corporate parties reject our candidates, have them endorse the 2 outside candidates as a coalition ticket nominated by a fusion coalition convention.

These 7 tactics must be agreed to and activated by a coalition of libertarians and progressives if we are ever going to stand a real chance of overthrowing the corporate junta. Righteous dreams, by one or both of these ideological rivals, of total victory and unconditional surrender will result in failure, probably irrevocable and potentially catastrophic.

There is no time to waste attempting to convert one another or to sweet talk one into political favors for the other. Beyond this coalition there will be plenty of time for bickering and jousting for political control. Without this coalition, watch for corporate power continued indefinitely and populist politics of all sorts dead for another century.

Once again, I sound my unamplified hue: libertarians and progressives unite; you have nothing to lose but your corporate chains.

New Petition Must Go Viral Now

2012-09-07T21:50:00.000-07:00

http://www.change.org/petitions/open-up-the-2012-presidential-debates

This one has been created by 2 Gary Johnson and 2 Jill Stein supporters. It's got over 1500 signers in 24 hours. Let's make the duopoly have to take this seriously.

What's Left to Do Mr. Machiavella?

2012-08-25T18:48:00.004-07:00

Some of this may sound like a Hail Mary but what more is there to lose? Here’s what’s left to do:

1.) Ron Paul delegates walk out of Republican convention and join Paul supporters in a peaceful human blockade of Tampa convention center when Ron Paul’s name is not placed in nomination.

2.) Get Anderson, Nader, Kucinich and Alexander to endorse Stein, and Goode, Paul and Roemer to endorse Johnson.

3.) Get Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates.

4.) Focus on New Mexico, Nevada and Vermont and leaning states: Johnson on those leaning Romney; Stein on those leaning Obama.

5.) Secure two states: New Mexico for Johnson and Vermont for Stein. Stein endorses Johnson in NM and Johnson endorses Stein in Vermont with prominent progressives and libertarians joining in.

6.) Leave toss up states alone and back off leaning states if money pours into Stein’s campaign from Romney sources. If not, Stein endorses Johnson in toss up states and backs off Obama leaning states.

7.) Get Bernie Sanders to negotiate in the Senate if there is a 50/50 split.

8.) If GOP retains the House, Romney is in. Put Biden in as VP unless Defense, Treasury, State and 3 other cabinet posts are secured.

9.) If Democrats take the House, Obama is back in. Bernie Sanders threatens to put Ryan in VP slot if same cabinet spots are not secured.

10.) A coalition of libertarian Republicans, progressive Democrats and opportunists from both parties who realize which way the wind is blowing take over congress and together with our people in the cabinet end the imperial presidency and replace empire building and maintenance, the military industrial catastrophe and all its crony corporate cousins with debt reduction and block grants to the states for building the peaceful green economy.

I Beg You...

2012-08-03T00:57:00.004-07:00

Barring some unforeseen miracle, the purpose of this blog will not be successful. Ron Paul will not be president. He will not be the Republican nominee. He will not run as an independent or a third party candidate. There will not be a coalition candidacy of any kind.

On the other hand, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be the two major candidates for president. We will here much ado about nothing in the debates. Cultural issues will be stressed when we face a catastrophic economic crisis. The media will do nothing to hold the candidates accountable. We will have a president in 2013 who cuts spending on the most vulnerable and continues to increase defense spending. That same president will lower the top marginal rates and do so while supposedly closing loopholes. This "reform" will be backed by a bipartisan super majority.

Wars will wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan while drone strikes will increase in several countries. Brinksmanship with Iran and North Korea will continue to justify a glutenous military and security budget with greater personal and social intrusiveness. Unemployment will gradually fall until it settles a tad south of 7% late in 2015. We will all then be reminded that we cannot have full employment without bubbles unless, of course, we want to do away with the minimum wage.

Neither progressives nor libertarians can feel much satisfaction in a war stimulus but that is essentially what we will get over the next four years with either Obama or Romney. If you want America to have a choice, it's too late for a viable one but it is not too late to get truly progressive and truly libertarian views a fair hearing. Eli Beckerman has started a very well constructed petition that needs 250K signatures. This petition seeks to get the only other candidates who have qualified to be on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning this election: Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

I ask all who read this to please sign this petition because we need to hear something different. We need America to know that we do not have to continue down this road of corporatism and militarism. At his point I am not ready to endorse either of these candidates. I wish I could endorse the two of them on the same ticket but it's too late for that to happen.

Please sign this petition and urge your friends to do the same!

Update: Marnie Glickman and Adam Gibson have both signed Eli Beckerman's petition.

10 Stupid Assumptions of Progressives and Libertarians Make for Not Working Together

2012-07-27T21:13:00.000-07:00

10 Stupid Assumptions of Progressives Who Always Oppose Alliances with Libertarians

1.) A libertarian president can be elected without a real coalition with progressives.

2.) Progressives in a coalition government would give libertarians complete control of all policy.

3.) The US Senate will automatically have of 60 consistent libertarians if a libertarian gets elected president.

4.) Progressives have no important policies in common with libertarians.

5.) Neither libertarians nor progressives are capable of principled compromises that can move both agendas forward simultaneously.

6.) The progressive agenda can move forward with plenty of funding while increasing the budget of the military industrial catastrophe.

7.) President Obama's re-election will mean that 60 Senators will cooperate with him on a truly progressive agenda.

8.) A libertarian being nominated or dividing the Republican party convention or taking votes away from the Republican nominee somehow harms progressives' goals and benefits the Republican party.

9.) Progressives should never vote strategically to advance their agenda.

10.) The Democratic party is a progressive political organization which promises to elect 60 progressive Senators without any problem..

I would add that the converse is also true:

10 Stupid Assumptions of Libertarians Who Always Oppose Alliances with Progressives

1.) A progressive president can be elected without a real coalition with libertarians.

2.)Libertarians in a coalition government would give progressives complete control over all policy.

3.) The US Senate will automatically have 60 consistent progressives if a progressive gets elected president.

4.) Libertarians have no important policies in common with progressives.

5.) Neither libertarians nor progressives are capable of principled compromises that can move both agendas forward simultaneously.

6.) The libertarian agenda of lower taxes and less government can move forward while continuing to increase the military industrial catastrophe's budget.

7.) Gary Johnson or Ron Paul's election means 60 Senators will cooperate with one or the other on a truly libertarian agenda.

8.) A 2016 progressive being nominated or dividing the Democratic party convention or taking votes away from the Democratic nominee somehow harms libertarians' goals and benefits the Democratic party.

9.) Libertarians should never vote strategically to advance their agenda.

10.) The Republican party is a libertarian political organization which promises to elect 60 libertarian Senators with no problem.

If We Are Ever Going To Win, This Win-Win Deal Must Be Done

2012-06-22T04:00:00.000-07:00

Since corporate rule will be with us for another 4 years, let me try one last time to tell whoever might be listening exactly what needs to be done to bring down the beast.

First, well meaning progressives and libertarians need to purge the thought that just because they are right on so many important issues does not mean that America will one day wake up and see the light. Libertarians and progressives, as disgusted as we may be with one another, have to form a temporary alliance of at least 4 years and maybe as much as 8 to make sure the two headed corporate beast is dead and unable to rise again. After that job is done then we can beat the hell out of one another if that is what we feel like doing.

This alliance has not and will not come together based on current commonalities on important issues like non-interventionism in foreign policy, civil liberties, corporate welfare, military spending. As significant as these issues are, this intersection of interests has been around for the last hundred years and not once have we formed any alliance beyond a few votes in congress.

Why the persistent divide? Obviously, it's economic issues. We progressives think that in these economic circumstances what we need is increased spending on domestic programs, especially, education, green energy and infrastructure, universal single payer health care, basic research and development. Pay for this by raising taxes on the wealthy and making massive cuts in unnecessary and counterproductive spending on the military industrial catastrophe and its numerous corporate cousins.

Libertarians on the other hand want massive reductions in military, foreign and domestic budgets along with gutting of most regulations in all sectors of the economy all to pay for massive tax reductions for all Americans, especially those who are most productive, the rich.

We could yell and scream at each other for how stupid the other is and let the beast continue to run wild. We could each sit back and say to ourselves, truth is on our side and truth will prevail while corporate media continues to lie, lie, lie. We could smugly plant our proud posteriors in pedantic think tanks while the powers that be laugh all the way to the banks they already own. We could even make another blog to shout into the wind.

We could do all this and more and let the earth go to hell for not finally seeing the light which is in us, to us and through us.

Or we could take a different tact.

We could come to grips with political reality that we are, as always, politically marginalized. We do not have the numbers separately to take down this beast. The beast will only be taken down by a coalition and while we would love to convert those cultural conservatives, it ain't happening. We have to either stand together or die separately. There is a massive military stimulus on the way and it will put desperate Americans back to work, making both of us irrelevant unless we face this political reality by joining forces in an uncomfortable coalition.

But that coalition gets formed only when we can make our way to a creative compromise on economic issues. (For those who are so damned ethical that you could never compromise without compromising principles, see my post on the difference between principles and ideals.)

Here's the way to make the economic compromise that moves both agendas forward simultaneously while decapitating both beastly heads of America Inc.:

First, acknowledge neither of us can get all we want for Christmas but we could get a few very important things we need. We can get significant cuts in the amount of taxes the vast majority of Americans are currently paying while cutting the size, power and budget of the federal government. We can also get a massive investment by the public sector to build the peaceful green economy of high speed rail, wind, solar, geothermal and other clean and renewable energies, etc. We can put tens of millions of people back to work rebuilding America's roads, bridges, tunnels, levies, ports, canals, runways, power grid, schools, etc.

How? How can we reduce overall federal spending and taxes for most people while creating massive public sector investment in jobs building a new peaceful green economy? First the budget cuts: 500 to 700 billion in cuts from overseas military spending and foreign aid (yes most progressives understand that much foreign aid is spent propping up dictators and murderous thugs), military contracts on weapons systems we dare not ever use, ridiculous homeland insecurity projects, endless and stupid drug wars, corporate welfare, etc.

Then we can knock another 100-200 billion off of domestic budgets for needless bureaucracies by consolidating major departments and putting these more powerful but less funded departments into the hands of some real progressives. For example, let's make Robert Kennedy Jr. the head of the new department of Energy and Natural Resources which combines the EPA, Interior, Energy, Agriculture and Transportation into one department. We might even be able to work out a deal with state and local governments and private businesses to sell off the Interstate Highway System and use the funds to build a truly high speed interstate rail system.

So far we have 600 to 900 billion in cuts. Next let's look at revenue. Let's really reform the tax code and significantly reduce the tax burden on at least 90% of the population while raising the tax burden on less than 3% of the population. Here are two big ideas, one my own, on how we reduce the IRS to a small number of auditors working for Treasury. We start with 3 income tax brackets of 10, 20 and 30 percent with greatly increased standard deductions, basic exemptions and child tax credits. We add to those brackets an annual consumption tax of 10% on spending above a million dollars.

Gradually we shift to a steeply progressive consumption tax with a significantly high exemption on spending (enough to cover all necessary spending on the basics and satisfy all the voluntarists among the Randians). In addition we legalize prostitution, pot and several other social vices and impose a serious sin tax on them. We also increase taxes on imports from lands where the government oppresses its people and destroys the environment. In other words, we normalize relations with Iran and Cuba and tax them the way we ought to tax the Chinese. We permanently reduce payroll taxes by raising or eliminating the cap and slowly over a long time period raising the retirement age.

We could go on about several ways to reform how, what, who and how much we tax. The point is we could unburden Americans of great tax burdens while significantly raising revenues if we just get out of our very tight boxes long enough to think creatively. In doing so we could raise 100-300 billion in annual revenues.

That's a total of 700-1200 billion a year in savings and revenue increases without taking into account what we do with this savings which serves to grow the economy and multiply revenue gains.

Second, we take these revenues and savings and we split them in half. Use one half to pay down debt (that is don't spend it all or use it to pay down debt faster). Use the other half to fund block grants to the states based solely on each state's population. Let the states do what they want to with the grants as long as they publicly account for how every penny is allocated. This starts a contest to prove that Texas is smarter than California just as libertarians are smarter than progressives.

Of course those brave and brilliant libertarians out there will object by saying, "Well why don't we just not tax them rather than sending the money up before it comes back down?" I know we progressives are way too paranoid about wealthy people keeping their money. Let's make a sub deal on this deal. We go up to come down for 3 years and then we phase out federal funding over the next five years through diminishing matching funds.

In other words, placate our progressive insecurities for a few years so you can have your infallible free market utopia for the next millennium since we all know that once rich people get to keep at least 90% over everything they earn, invest or inherit, working people will be fully employed in good paying and long lasting, high benefits jobs.

Third, and this is a little redundant, promise and deliver a real coalition government starting with a libertarian/ progressive or progressive/libertarian presidential ticket. No deal is going to be trusted if it's: "Join with me and do it my way since some of your way is already my way and you shouldn't mind getting 60% while I get 100% of what I want." Maybe it's a Sanders/Johnson ticket next time or Paul/Ellison. Either way trusted persons can be trusted to keep the covenant. Let a libertarian have Treasury. And let's not just audit or even abolish the Fed. Let's replace it by putting its powers back in the hands of the congress where the Constitution says it belongs.

Let's consolidate several domestic departments and reduce the total budgets of those departments by 20 to 30% over 4 years but reassure us loser leftists by putting real progressives in charge. That way you can watch us fall flat on our faces and the American people decide to devolve all of that authority back to the states and private sector.

For neither side is this deal ideal. However, it is a better deal than you can expect from either Obama 2 or Romney 1. I know you would get a better deal with Johnson and the Judge or the Eye Doctor and Amash. Just like we are going to get a much better deal when Dennis and VP Bernie begin their rule with open hands.

For goodness sake, stop this fantasy or at least put the pause button on! You are not getting the deal you salivate for until we together first kill the beast. If we are ever going to wake the rest of America up, we must first set the alarm for ourselves.

If We Are Ever Going to Win, This Win-Win Deal MUST Be Done

2012-06-20T21:52:00.000-07:00

Since corporate rule will be with us for another 4 years, let me try one last time to tell whoever might be listening exactly what needs to be done to bring down the beast.

First, well meaning progressives and libertarians need to purge the thought that just because they are right on so many important issues does not mean that America will one day wake up and see the light. Libertarians and progressives, as disgusted as we may be with one another, have to form a temporary alliance of at least 4 years and maybe as much as 8 to make sure the two headed corporate beast is dead and unable to rise again. After that job is done then we can beat the hell out of one another if that is what we feel like doing.

This alliance has not and will not come together based on current commonalities on important issues like non-interventionism in foreign policy, civil liberties, corporate welfare, military spending. As significant as these issues are, this intersection of interests has been around for the last hundred years and not once have we formed any alliance beyond a few votes in congress.

Why the persistent divide? Obviously, it's economic issues. We progressives think that in these economic circumstances what we need is increased spending on domestic programs, especially, education, green energy and infrastructure, universal single payer health care, basic research and development. Pay for this by raising taxes on the wealthy and making massive cuts in unnecessary and counterproductive spending on the military industrial catastrophe and its numerous corporate cousins.

Libertarians on the other hand want massive reductions in military, foreign and domestic budgets along with gutting of most regulations in all sectors of the economy all to pay for massive tax reductions for all Americans, especially those who are most productive, the rich.

We could yell and scream at each other for how stupid the other is and let the beast continue to run wild. We could each sit back and say to ourselves, truth is on our side and truth will prevail while corporate media continues to lie, lie, lie. We could smugly plant our proud posteriors in pedantic think tanks while the powers that be laugh all the way to the banks they already own. We could even make another blog to shout into the wind.

We could do all this and more and let the earth go to hell for not finally seeing the light which is in us, to us and through us.

Or we could take a different tact.

We could come to grips with political reality that we are, as always, politically marginalized. We do not have the numbers separately to take down this beast. The beast will only be taken down by a coalition and while we would love to convert those cultural conservatives, it ain't happening. We have to either stand together or die separately. There is a massive military stimulus on the way and it will put desperate Americans back to work, making both of us irrelevant unless we face this political reality by joining forces in an uncomfortable coalition.

But that coalition gets formed only when we can make our way to a creative compromise on economic issues. (For those who are so damned ethical that you could never compromise without compromising principles, see my post on the difference between principles and ideals.)

Here's the way to make the economic compromise that moves both agendas forward simultaneously while decapitating both beastly heads of America Inc.:

First, acknowledge neither of us can get all we want for Christmas but we could get a few very important things we need. We can get significant cuts in the amount of taxes the vast majority of Americans are currently paying while cutting the size, power and budget of the federal government. We can also get a massive investment by the public sector to build the peaceful green economy of high speed rail, wind, solar, geothermal and other clean and renewable energies, etc. We can put tens of millions of people back to work rebuilding America's roads, bridges, tunnels, levies, ports, canals, runways, power grid, schools, etc.

How? How can we reduce overall federal spending and taxes for most people while creating massive public sector investment in jobs building a new peaceful green economy? First the budget cuts: 500 to 700 billion in cuts from overseas military spending and foreign aid (yes most progressives understand that much foreign aid is spent propping up dictators and murderous thugs), military contracts on weapons systems we dare not ever use, ridiculous homeland insecurity projects, endless and stupid drug wars, corporate welfare, etc.

Then we can knock another 100-200 billion off of domestic budgets for needless bureaucracies by consolidating major departments and putting these more powerful but less funded departments into the hands of some real progressives. For example, let's make Robert Kennedy Jr. the head of the new department of Energy and Natural Resources which combines the EPA, Interior, Energy, Agriculture and Transportation into one department. We might even be able to work out a deal with state and local governments and private businesses to sell off the Interstate Highway System and use the funds to build a truly high speed interstate rail system.

So far we have 600 to 900 billion in cuts. Next let's look at revenue. Let's really reform the tax code and significantly reduce the tax burden on at least 90% of the population while raising the tax burden on less than 3% of the population. Here are two big ideas, one my own, on how we reduce the IRS to a small number of auditors working for Treasury. We start with 3 income tax brackets of 10, 20 and 30 percent with greatly increased standard deductions, basic exemptions and child tax credits. We add to those brackets an annual consumption tax of 10% on spending above a million dollars.

Gradually we shift to a steeply progressive consumption tax with a significantly high exemption on spending (enough to cover all necessary spending on the basics and satisfy all the voluntarists among the Randians). In addition we legalize prostitution, pot and several other social vices and impose a serious sin tax on them. We also increase taxes on imports from lands where the government oppresses its people and destroys the environment. In other words, we normalize relations with Iran and Cuba and tax them the way we ought to tax the Chinese. We permanently reduce payroll taxes by raising or eliminating the cap and slowly over a long time period raising the retirement age.

We could go on about several ways to reform how, what, who and how much we tax. The point is we could unburden Americans of great tax burdens while significantly raising revenues if we just get out of our very tight boxes long enough to think creatively. In doing so we could raise 100-300 billion in annual revenues.

That's a total of 700-1200 billion a year in savings and revenue increases without taking into account what we do with this savings which serves to grow the economy and multiply revenue gains.

Second, we take these revenues and savings and we split them in half. Use one half to pay down debt (that is don't spend it all or use it to pay down debt faster). Use the other half to fund block grants to the states based solely on each state's population. Let the states do what they want to with the grants as long as they publicly account for how every penny is allocated. This starts a contest to prove that Texas is smarter than California just as libertarians are smarter than progressives.

Of course those brave and brilliant libertarians out there will object by saying, "Well why don't we just not tax them rather than sending the money up before it comes back down?" I know we progressives are way too paranoid about wealthy people keeping their money. Let's make a sub deal on this deal. We go up to come down for 3 years and then we phase out federal funding over the next five years through diminishing matching funds.

In other words, placate our progressive insecurities for a few years so you can have your infallible free market utopia for the next millennium since we all know that once rich people get to keep at least 90% of everything they earn, invest or inherit, working people will be fully employed in good paying and long lasting, high benefits jobs.

Third, and this is a little redundant, promise and deliver a real coalition government starting with a libertarian/ progressive or progressive/libertarian presidential ticket. No deal is going to be trusted if it's: "Join with me and do it my way since some of your way is already my way and you shouldn't mind getting 60% while I get 100% of what I want." Maybe it's a Sanders/Johnson ticket next time or Paul/Ellison. Either way trusted persons can be trusted to keep the covenant. Let a libertarian have Treasury. And let's not just audit or even abolish the Fed. Let's replace it by putting its powers back in the hands of the congress where the Constitution says it belongs.

Let's consolidate several domestic departments and reduce the total budgets of those departments by 20 to 30% over 4 years but reassure us loser leftists by putting real progressives in charge. That way you can watch us fall flat on our faces and the American people decide to devolve all of that authority back to the states and private sector.

For neither side is this deal ideal. However, it is a better deal than you can expect from either Obama 2 or Romney 1. I know you would get a better deal with Johnson and the Judge or the Eye Doctor and Amash. Just like we are going to get a much better deal when Dennis and VP Bernie begin their rule with open hands.

For goodness sake, stop this fantasy or at least put the pause button on! You are not getting the deal you salivate for until your first kill the beast. If you are ever going to wake the rest of America up, you must first set the alarm for yourself.

I'm through. Bye.

10 Assumptions Progressives Make Against Supporting Ron Paul

2012-06-11T18:08:00.001-07:00

Originally posted to no avail and no response on Huffington Post:

1.) Ron Paul can be elected without a real coalition with progressives.

2.) Progressives in a coalition government would give Ron Paul complete control of all policy.

3.) The US will be composed of 60 consistent libertarians like Rand Paul if Ron Paul gets elected president.

4.) Progressives have no important policy in common with libertarians.

5.) Neither libertarians nor progressives are capable of principled compromises that can move both agendas forward simultaneously.

6.) The progressive agenda can move forward with plenty of funding while increasing the budget of the military industrial catastrophe.

7.) President Obama's re-election will mean that 60 Senators will cooperate with him on a truly progressive agenda.

8.) Ron Paul being nominated or dividing the Republican party convention somehow harms progressives' goals and benefits the Republican party.

9.) Progressives should never vote strategically to advance our agenda.

10.) Democratic party is a progressive political organization.

Tampa GOP Convention Forecaste

2012-06-09T20:30:00.000-07:00

We are one step away from the worst possible outcome. All that remains is for Ron Paul to endorse Mitt Romney. I cannot imagine that happening but then 8 months ago I could not imagine Rand Paul giving Romney his first significant endorsement of the campaign.

The GOP convention will reveal that Ron Paul does not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Nor does he have enough to prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot. He will come in a respectable second in delegate count with less than 500 and more than 200 delegates. In the end the delegate count will reflect the popular vote count with Ron Paul winning more than 10% and less than 20% of each.

The overly optimistic of his crowd will point out how he nearly tripled the number of supporters he had in 2008. This will be interpreted by the campaign as "We are winning the future." The Paul campaign will never consider, much less, admit the obvious: this amounts to irrefutable proof that the delegate strategy sans coalition promise was a complete failure.

Ron Paul will not endorse Romney explicitly but he will praise him for his leadership skills and understanding of how the economy works while not criticizing him directly for the warfare policy that has largely caused our financial woes. On the other hand he will gladly and righteously criticize President Obama for all manner of economic and foreign policy evil with ne' er an encouraging word on anything else.

His friends will interpret his prime time speech as the grand farewell of the last founding father. His foes will restrain grinning in public with great praise for his ethics, steadfastness and advocacy of American freedom.

In the party platform there will be token regard for responsible use of American power abroad and restraint from irresponsible use of the same. On the economic side there will be a call for strict auditing of the federal reserve and condemnation of corporate welfare.

Some of his supporters will see through all this superficial patronizing but most of those in need of an attitude adjustment will be supporting Mr. Four Percent, Gary Johnson in his futile attempt to get into the debates. The few who quietly mumble their misgivings will be polite and maybe they might even be given a reason to hope.

That reason remains to be seen but because of his premature acclamation of the nominee, Rand Paul will be seen as loyal enough not resist should the commander in chief find necessary a preventive strike against a future nuclear foe.

There might just be a Vice President Paul after all, and should this "political stroke of genius" (as it would be dubbed from every quarter of the MSM) materialize, forgiveness will abound to the chief of sinners as the prodigal is seen as foreshadowing the 2020 vision victorious.

Who shall convert whom remains to be seen.

How I wish my purse and my religion would allow me to dare a wager!

Rand Paul

2012-06-08T07:17:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney is to me immoral and unprincipled but maybe I am wrong. maybe it is the only realistic option, at least in Rand Paul's eyes, that he has for advancing his father's libertarian agenda. If it is, my blog has been totally ineffectual in its intent.

It remains to be seen whether the elder Paul will do the same. my guess is he will. I hope not. i pray not. It would seem so out of character for him to do such a thing.

I am in favor of a libertarian takeover of the Republican party. I am also in favor of a progressive takeover of the Democratic party. i do not see either happening within the next 2 presidential election cycles. Twelve years from now we might celebrate a progressives verses a libertarian presidential campaign. It would be a good thing.

But is it possible? Can these tow ideologies overthrow the corporate tycoons who dominate the two parties? I the long run, maybe but not this year or 2016 or 2020. We don't have that long to wait. by then global corporate interests will have made all national elections fronts for keeping power. It seems they may have already done this and if so, that argues all the more for impatience.

Wisconsin's Lesson for Progressives

2012-06-06T14:50:00.002-07:00

Progressives did their best in a state that only 2 years ago had arguably the most progressive US Senator. And we got out butts kicked. If we cannot win in a blue state why should we expect our agenda to go forward in 2013?

The supposed good news is Obama's exit poll numbers show that he defeats Romney by 7 points and got the support of 18% of Walker's voters. This means Obama 2 will be...wait for it...more of the same. The president is hardwired to split the difference and with the GOP moving ever closer to fascism, he will govern right of center again.

Progressives will not get 60 Senators. We will not get a public option. We will not get progressive tax reform. We will not get cuts in military spending. We will not see an end to the drug war.We will not see less drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan.

We will get more increases in insurance premiums. We will get lower rates and false promises of closed loopholes at the top. We will see more prisons filled, more addicts untreated and pot untaxed. We will create more terrorists.

Searching for a silver lining.... We might get a tad greener using Chinese technology. The same would happen under Romney.

Another black cloud.... The blue dogs will say,"We told you so and they will get there way when it comes to cabinet appointments and congressional committee chairs.

A huge opportunity has been lost. Let's get it right next time. We need a partner. Libertarians are far from ideal but better to make a deal with them than the same corporate squatters who have ignored us because they really don't want collective bargaining or any other opportunity for the working class to move out of desperation and into stability.

reponse

2012-06-01T04:40:00.000-07:00

I do hope you take some time to read what I have written concerning how this campign could be won in a way that advances both libertarian and progressive agendas simultaneously.

I shall take your accusation of my complicity in corporate cronyism and equating the progressivism with tyranny for what it is worth.()

The campaign may have had a plan for winning but they never used it if they did. I blame progressives for not supporting Ron Paul despite his ideological imperfections and I blame sectarian libertarians who assume they have arrived at a perfect understanding of liberty (as meaning the state of being left alone with all involuntary associations being contrary to liberty).

Their insistence on the firm acceptance of all libertarian principles and precepts as an absolute prerequisite to political alliances and coalitions is contrary to the good sense of Dr. Paul as put forth in his transition plan.

Furthermore such stringent requirements which confuses ideals for principles and allows for no compromises has enslaved libertarians to limited political options for advancing their own agenda.

I set forth several specific policy prescriptions around 3 basic elements of a coalition covenant which would have put Ron Paul in real contention for winning the White House. The elements and policies of this coalition agreement require some amount of compromise in terms of timing and policy for both progressives and libertarians but no compromises in terms of principles for either.

Exclusion of such principled compromises for the sake of mutually advancing both progressive and libertarian principles and policies will continue to allow the corporatism, which is glad to wear libertarian, progressive and cultural conservative masks, to reign supreme in our political economy.

The post above was meant to provoke anger but also to engage you and other libertarians in a serious conversation about why an admirable and principled statesman like Ron Paul cannot be nominated.

His campaign was bent exclusively on winning delegates alone with an aim toward an eventual actuarial takeover of the GOP. This should be crystal clear by now and a reason for libertarians like yourself to be disappointed with his staff, if not the man himself.

Personally, I find little fault in Ron Paul on this since his transition plan gave his campaign the basis for running a winning campaign and he obviously did not want to run for president again in the first place. He has basically allowed his campaign team to experiment and learn from their mistakes even as they did indeed have some successes.

If you wait for enough Americans to wake up to every libertarian prescription before you can win, you have no winning strategy. There are plenty of progressives and moderates who are awake to corporate cronyism. We understand like you that we must reduce debt and tax burdens while investing in the infrastructure of a peaceful green economy. We realize that the federal government is enslaved to corporate interests. Why wait until we can fully embrace the libertarian creed before you decide the American people have awaken enough to cooperate with us.

Sectarian progressivism is just as counter-productive as its libertarian version. Until we both become more ecumenical, we'll get nothing done at all.

While I have no part in it, do not desire to and condemn it as moral futility, you would be foolish to imagine that progressives are not stockpiling every bit as much ammunition as libertarians are. Violence will serve neither or us now or in the collapse.

Finally, I do not think a collapse is inevitable (though certainly it is becoming increasingly probable). There is a way that these neo-cons and liberal corporatists can make a deal. They already have.... First,divide cultural conservatives, libertarians and progressives into two tribes and keep them blaming one another. Second, start, escalate, and expand wars to create a warfare state. And third, when unemployment settles down to 5 or 6 percent take credit for it. The economy could stabilize and debt get diminished or wiped out while slick murderous thugs reign over the entire globe and you and I go on debating.

Peace.

A Simple Idea for Libertarians and Progressives

2012-05-31T09:35:00.001-07:00

Here's a rather simple and probably uncontroversial idea:

Two members of congress, perhaps the two best members of congress, will not be there next year. They have both run for president. They are friends. They come from different parts of the country. They are both principled and driven by big ideas. They have opposed one another on legislative issues and they have co-sponsored bills together.

I think they ought to go on tour together over the next 4 years and host a series of conferences bringing together both libertarian and progressive thinkers, strategists, politicians, and activists to discuss, debate and create policy and to hear proposals for reforming and reclaiming our government and our economy from the corporate military industrial catastrophe and all of its crony cousins and their neocon and blue dog hacks in congress and the White House.

I am, of course,talking about Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

How about somebody (or bodies) with more pull than I getting this idea up the ladder? Maybe make it a viral request.

RP Campaign's 3 Biggest Mistakes

2012-05-30T06:35:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul's campaign will end on August 30 and it will be viewed as a template for future underdog candidates. His delegate strategy has taught young people much about how the process works and by bringing them into that process, he has laid a foundation for this same young people to rise up the ranks of political power.

More importantly, this campaign has demonstrated one man's moral courage. When I first heard Ron Paul answer a question in a 1988 Republican presidential debate, I was totally stunned. The moderator conveyed a question from an audience member asking the candidates, "What is the most important moral issue facing America today." Everybody knows the answer at a Republican debate: It's either abortion or traditional marriage and family breakdown.

Ron Paul was offered the first opportunity to answer. Without hesitation he answers,"The abandonment of the Christian theory of just war." I can't remember if I was drinking tea, coke or water but I lost it all over the floor. This guy just told a room full of warmongers to go to hell.

I had never heard anything so courageous and true come out of any politicians mouth. His willingness to stand up to the establishment in his own party on a central plank in their platform is unprecedented. What he said would be like a Democrat answering the same question by saying "The lack of reverence for human life from conception to natural death."

Paul has also shown his wisdom, compassion and moral integrity in his transition plan. Rather than be the libertarian purists his followers imagine him to be by saying let's write everybody a check for what they've paid into the entitlement system and end it, he refuses to advocate even slightly cutting such benefits for those who have paid into the system and will be dependent upon it. He wanted to give young people the opportunity to opt out of the program and pay for their non contributions to support seniors by shifting half of the funds saved from the militarism spending departments to pay for the shortfall.

Would that his campaign had seized on this spirit and the specific proposal which modeled how to bring progressives on board even if it needed a slight tweaking in light of political realities and opportunities.

While there is much more to be said in favor of Paul and his campaign there were significant missteps and missed opportunities. Here are the 3 biggest:

1.) A caucus/delegate strategy that never tried to win a a primary: The delegate strategy with early selective focus on caucus states was essential; however, there was no serious attempt to actually win one primary state. He could have focused on SC, and later there was absolutely no excuse for not moving hard into Virginia. One victory in either of these states would have radically changed the course of this nomination process.

2.) Refusal to deal swiftly, boldly and thoroughly with the race issue: His campaign should have gotten him a stage in SC to do a major speech on racial justice and then followed that up with a series of interviews with African American media personalities. He could have appealed to the African American community and urged them to crossover and vote to send a message to the president not to take them for granted by doing nothing about discrimination in the judicial and penal system especially in regard to drug offenses. A victory in SC thanks to military support and African American Democrats would have been tsunamic.

3.) Unwillingness to promise a real coalition government with progressives and run a campaign aimed at bringing progressives on board: From the get go, he should have promised a coalition government with a Democratic running mate. Oh sure he would have further alienated people who would never vote for him in the first place but he would have sent panic running up the spines of every establishment Republican and Democrat. A compromise on economic issues which advanced his agenda to cut taxes, reduced government spending and debt, and shifted power back to the states would have galvanized millions across the political spectrum.

It is sad that these mistakes cost him the election but perhaps the lessons learned will benefit the next underdog candidate who wants to do what's right and wise.

Response to fd

2012-05-29T05:55:00.002-07:00

fd, thanks for your thoughtful responses. I obviously need to clarify a few things. But first let me ask you this political question. I would agree that the Obama and Bush administration along with their parties in congress and most of the policy made there has been violent. Would you agree also that a coalition of progressives like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich with with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson regardless of who is at the top of the ticket would be less violent in policy and practice than an Obama 2 or a Romney 1 administration?

I think you would answer yes to that question but let me know if I am wrong. I will add a comment and you can tell me if you disagree with this as well: a libertarian/progressive coalition ticket stands a better chance of winning the White House than does either an exclusively libertarian or an exclusively progressive ticket does.

Not to be overly presumptuous but I am guessing you would agree on that political calculus as well. It is obvious to me that the biggest obstacle to this sort of coalition is economic policy. It has been one of my main purposes to try in this blog to bridge that gap as far as is realistically possible. If some sort of (temporary) bridge is not built across the economic policy divide, we will continue in our current state of political estrangement from one another and the offices of congress and presidency.

So far I think you are with me on these assumptions and assessments. Now let me attempt to answer your questions and show you how I believe the compromise policies I have outlined in this post and explained in greater detail in earlier posts would build this bridge.

I am not opposed to eliminating corporations partly or completely and perhaps incorporation as a legal means is unnecessary for businesses to function. I would be interested in hearing more about what you mean by corporation and corporatism and how we might eliminate them.

As for the non aggression principle, I would need to know more about what you mean. As a Christian I am influenced by both the peace tradition and the just war tradition. I am not sure that I can say definitively I am fully convinced by either but at the very least I believe that God desires us to act in peaceful ways and to not impose our wills upon others especially when those others have not attempted to impose their wills upon us.

I can see circumstances where unrequested intervention would be morally righteous. For example, if I see a person about to be hit by a car and I am able, I could tackle that person and maybe even injure them in the process causing that person to be angry at me but doing justice to that person by protecting him from imminent death or greater bodily harm.

I am not sure why you consider tariffs to be acts of violence as a opposed to legal acts of sovereign nations. I know many libertarians hate taxes and consider taxes in general an act of violence. Do you hold this view in regard to all taxes? If not what type of taxes are acceptable? I'm not sure you if you read this post: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/11/libertarianprogressive-coalition-tax.html

My main question on this subject is: Wouldn't you think that a proposal that lowers taxes below their current Bush/Obama levels for at least 90% of the population while raising taxes slightly on not more than 2% of the population would be better than keeping taxes as they are now? For example let's say we doubled the exemption and had 3 income brackets of 10, 20 and 30 percent with a 10% tax on annual consumption above 1 million dollars. This would lower the income tax rates on all people without imposing more taxes on savings and investment income.

I am sure that would not be ideal in your mind but I hope you would be honest and acknowledge that it would actually lower the tax burden for 99% of the population and not penalize millionaires for making investments and saving money, thus supplying the capital necessary to create jobs.

You wouldn't be so stubborn as to refuse a deal like that when such a refusal keeps us in the current tax situation? Or would you prefer to wait another 12 years for there to be 60 libertarian Republicans in the Senate to create your ideal tax policy? (I of course think 12 years is a pipe dream fro progressives or libertarians to gain such exclusive political power.)

As for what to do with new revenue and savings from reduced spending. When I say half of it would go to debt reduction, I am saying those funds are no longer available for spending unless it is used to pay down federal debt more quickly (which our creditors do not want us to do).

When I propose sending the other half to the states, I am talking about a temporary measure which can be ended after 4 years or renewed for another 4 years or phased out over a mutually agreed time frame. It does not reduce debt of course but it does move money out of Washington and allows the states to do with it as they please. Some states may pass it along in the form of tax breaks. Some states may use it for infrastructure and education projects. Some states may use it for a variety of purposes.

What we do here is essentially set up a grand experiment to find out what works best for creating long term good paying jobs. Perhaps Texas will prove all of us progressives wrong and you will have your complete victory as we are totally discredited and humiliated by our failed policy. Surely, you are not afraid that your team will be on the losing end. The bottom line on this is it is a decentralizing move which we progressives will accept and if you libertarians cooperate with us more at the local level you might get the federal government whittled down to the constitutional level you desire.

I hope you can see that there is specific content in what I am proposing which advances both libertarian and progressive economic agendas simultaneously. If you look back at other posts you'll find other proposals which aim to do the same.

The big question we progressives and you libertarians need to answer is: Can we do better together in the political world we live in than we can sitting separately on the sidelines while corporatists rule the roost? And let's face it, if what we have in common now (sans economic policy) failed to bring us together, we will never get together at all. Come on fd...don't you want to win with a partner who agrees to let your agenda move forward so it can stand a fighting chance of showing its virtue? Please say you agree! We can have our non aggressive ideological fight after we kick the corporate crones out.

Farewell Message to Americans Elect

2012-05-27T02:19:00.004-07:00

Farewell Message to Americans Elect

I am not certain why AE did not work. I had hoped that this was a real grassroots effort to do something different. I read all sorts of skeptical reports and comments about the motives of those who created AE.

Did they create it only to find that those who were interested did not share their agendas and thus did not promote the candidates they wanted? Were there saboteurs from without or within who wanted to kill this idea who succeeded?

I had these worries as I continued the process. I supported candidates who were declared and undeclared, known politicians and unknown or little known ordinary Americans, insiders and outsiders, Democrats, Republicans, independents and third party candidates, all with the hope that someone would emerge who would garner enough supporters for this to work.

I wanted it to work because I, like so many Americans, am fed up with the petty bickering of tribal operatives, talking heads and hired hacks of the right, left and center, stirring us into a froth of anger and confusion so that their smoke and mirrors, bait and switch, divide and conquer, prefabricated, lowest common denominator policies designed to keep the already opulent permanently powerful at the expense of the well meaning, hopelessly hopeful, numbered nobodies like me and millions of other Americans.

I just wanted to be heard for real, for the ideas and aspirations of creative and visionary people of goodwill to get concrete, substantive, breakthrough, trans-partisan proposals into a real, unscripted office of the US presidency. And maybe, with a president who truly is the elected leader of the people rather than the corporate gofer of grandiose greed, we could change this nation into a land of peaceful and prosperous people with realistic opportunities to live wholesome lives free from debt and job insecurity.

I tell myself I should not be surprised, that I should have seen this coming from miles and months away. I should have known not to waste one hour, let alone the 40 or 60 that I did sending and answering questions in an echo chamber only at the end to have some cyber security (whether necessary or not, hostile or benign, I was unequipped and unqualified to tell) somebody or something say to me,"Let me see your ID?" I wanted to open up my laptop and say, "You show me yours first."

That should have done it. I was relieved to see the first caucus delayed while, I, who am no Prince Hamlet, contemplated which form of ID I would choose, or whether maybe there was some kind of glitch in the system that would be fixed and allow these cyber spirits to find out I was really who I claimed to be. I even thought about giving away another 5 bucks I owed to the bank to see if that might jump-start the engine of electoral accountability.

I must admit I felt a confused twinge of relief when, in some message I read some prosaic words that sounded like the spirits of AE had passed away. It was not overly ambiguous when it meekly admitted the vision's failure. In gratitude they have departed. Surely what information they have gleaned about me and thousands of others will be used for good purposes. Surely, in some less than perfect way one of my ideas will float to the top and pop out in a policy proposal one day. Maybe someday a yet unborn grandchild will say, "That idea that simplified the tax code, eliminated the waste, decreased the debt and fully funded the building of the peaceful green economy... that was my granddaddy's.

Oh no...it's 4:30am...; been at this for an hour and a half. Better copy and paste to my secure file thingy just in case I have been typing into a closed archive. I blow a kiss goodbye to ... oh wait I can't login to my account anymore...maybe I can remember most of you....Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Gary Johnson, Rocky Anderson, Buddy Roemer, Jill Stein, Michealene Risley, Laurence Kotlikoff and a few others I fail to remember.

Farewell to all those pseudonymed saints and sinners, faceless fellow country folk and city spirits I don't know how to contact personally if I had the time. Maybe someday your and my words will be unearth by a cyber archeologist and published in a virtual footnote of some subset file of an arcane journal of cultural anthropology.

May the piece that passes as understanding guard your identity, value your participation, and use your resources for the building up of whatever beast slouches toward Bethlehem to be born.

Yours Always,

@#$%^!:(

PS If after I hit enter, this does go through, I can still maintain intellectual property rights...or is that still copyright? ... Yoohoo....I have a question...anybody there...? anybody?