The other day I wrote that Republicans faced a choice in Virginia. This was in reference to newly elected Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell proposing policies that seemed to be the opposite of what candidate McDonnell supported while claiming to be a “fiscal conservative” and “anti-stimulus” Republican.

Voters sent a strong message in November when they elected McDonnell by a landslide margin. However, they did not elect him to go knocking on Obama’s door for stimulus cash on behalf of Virginia. Yesterday, Anita Kumar with the Washington Post covered McDonnell’s latest “stimulus” scheme. McDonnell, along with former Virginia Governor and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine, have gone hat in hand to Obama to request $350 million for educational purposes in Virginia. The Federal money would come from the Race to the Top Program.

According to Anita Kumar:

“The $350 million requested by Virginia would be split between the state and the 117 local education agencies that have asked for funding. Money would be spent on charter schools and low-performing schools, finding and retaining teachers, and improving student assessment, among other purposes. All of Northern Virginia’s school systems signed on.”

How does Mr. McDonnell expect to pay for these programs once the “stimulus” cash runs out? And, what happened to the “fiscal conservatism” that Mr. McDonnell sold over the course of his campaign? Activists are paying attention and will hold Mr. McDonnell accountable for his increased spending propositions.

The Typical GOP Rears Its Ugly Head

It looks like Mr. McDonnell is doing the usual GOP two-step routine when it comes to his position on the stimulus. McDonnell has publicly stated that he believes that as long as stimulus money is there, Virginia should have it’s share but states that he is against a stimulus bill in the first place. But does Mr. McDonnell even know what Virginia’s share of that money really is? Doubtful.

Democrats have picked up on the routine that Mr. McDonnell and other Republicans have been performing. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL) says, “Republicans like Bob McDonnell have been particularly critical of pieces [of the Recovery Act] that wouldn’t create jobs, and now he’s asking for that money anyway. You can’t have it both ways. If you are against something, be against it.”

While Mr. McDonnell is calling for a period of belt tightening in regards to the budget shortfalls he is facing in Virginia, which is about $4 billion, he is increasing the amount of Federal money coming into the state. This does not match up to “fiscally conservative” principles that he has espoused so often.

Recently, Mr. McDonnell attempted to further raise his fiscal conservative bona fides as he announced his savings of around $80,000 of tax payer money on his transition into the Governors office. Well well, thank you Mr. McDonnell for saving us $80,000, but could you also save us the the pains of adding new programs paid for by the Federal Empire? And, if the $80,00 savings is reason for applause, why don’t you just cut the $6 million you are spending on Public Broadcasting, since you have already announced plans to phase it out over the next four years. Just cut it now if you are so serious about closing the budget deficit!

Americans are looking for leaders that are responsible when elected. And Americans are watching Virginia to see how Republicans are leading when given the opportunity. Mr. McDonnell should take note of that.

This post was originally featured at NetRightNation.com.

Republicans and conservatives throughout the country are near giddy as they survey the prospects for the 2010 elections. As the policies of President Obama and the mobbed-up Congress of Nancy Pelosi become more exposed, the American people are running from them in droves.

All predictions are that the GOP will have a banner year and may reclaim a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. And while the odds are that Harry Reid’s Democrats retain their Senate majority, it is certain to be much more narrow a margin.

But scratch the surface of this euphoria and a nagging fear is prevalent. What if, the fear whispers, the Republicans take back the majority and immediately revert to the same weak, vapid, self-destructive behavior that characterized the Republican Congresses that so repulsed the public before? Have they really changed? Are they willing to boldly do those things necessary to save the Republic?

Early signs coming out of Virginia are not encouraging. In 2009, Virginia elected a Republican governor by a landslide. The vote was as much a repudiation of Obama and his socialist policies as it was for the victor, Bob McDonnell. The GOP saw a large increase in their numbers in the State Assembly. If ever there was a mandate, McDonnell and the Republicans have it.

The outgoing governor and now Democrat National Chairman Tim Kaine left a huge fiscal mess. McDonnell has had to face a $4 billion shortfall. But, any new Republican Congress in 2011 will face an even more daunting situation. So, how McDonnell addresses the gaping deficit can tell Americans a lot about how many inside the GOP will deal with Obama’s $1.5 trillion deficit next year.

Three items in the McDonnell approach to the budget clearly show a lack of courage and resolve, and demonstrate that the establishment GOP may not have learned a thing from its brief time in exile.

First, while joining in on the attack of the spendthrift Democrats, McDonnell has gone hat in hand to those very same left-wing Democrats begging for federal money. Seeking to avoid cuts or any meaningful restructuring, McDonnell has allied himself with Obama on extending federal bailout funds to the states.

Second, in the ultimate dodge and weave, the McDonnell administration is calling for allowing local governments to underfund pension obligations. This is a complex area but the bottom line is that he is letting the Commonwealth and local governments use pension money for current consumption, thereby greatly underfunding the state employee pension system.

Any notion of addressing the monster of public employee legacy costs is a pipe dream. The McDonnell team is just kicking this can down the road for the next Governor. But as the obligations grow and the amount of invested funds is reduced, we will quickly reach a point where massive amounts of tax money will be required to meet the commitment to public workers. Nowhere is there a mention of putting the public employee pension system on a sustainable path, real reform that is vital to both the public employees and the taxpayers.

And third, a time of such fiscal austerity is also an opportunity to rid ourselves of the wasteful, needless baubles of Big Government. But McDonnell appears unwilling to do that.

Numerous public polls have shown a big increase in the number of Americans who identify themselves as conservatives. But those same polls have shown that there has been at best no growth in the number of people who self-identify as “Republican.” The most recent actions of the McDonnell Administration explain why.

Unless the GOP finds its true soul and commits itself to taking bold action, its stay in the halls of power will be very short-lived. And if tossed aside again by an increasingly frustrated and angry public, Republican majorities will not be seen again for a generation or more. Tentative, meek actions are not what the American people want nor are they what the country needs. It is time for the GOP to decide if they want to be America’s natural majority or its fading memory.

Aside from the normal cost of government removing snow, OPM chief John Berry claims that the taxpayers are saddled with a $100 Million cost of work not done by employees while off on snow days. Seriously.

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer has the story:

But experts say this month’s storms, with their “historic’” proportions, are ultimately a net negative for taxpayers, who foot the bill for snow cleanup and the lost productivity of more than 230,000 idle federal employees. Official Washington was shut down for a third straight snow day — unprecedented in recent times.

Office of Personnel Management chief John Berry, who decides when to close the federal government, has said each snow day costs taxpayers an estimated $100 million in work government employees don’t do.

Federal workers are still paid for the unanticipated days off due to weather. Other government shutdowns – such as the six-day closure in November 1995 during a budget dispute in Congress – furloughed non-essential workers, thereby saving taxpayers money.

This morning on Don Imus’ Fox Business show, Imus joked that it costs $100 Million to shut government down but it also costs $1 Billion to have government run. That’s not a bad joke.

It is ironic that government officials are running forth with claims of runaway costs to the taxpayers. Where did all this fiscal responsibility suddenly come from? These officials whining about the extreme costs are the same ones that have run us into huge deficits. Ironic, don’t you think?

This post originally appeared at LibertyMovementHQ.com.

When people hear the ideas behind Anarcho-Capitalism, those that cannot imagine what a free market society truly is conjure up images of people running in the streets committing insanely violent acts against others. While this is far from what would really happen under a shift towards freedom, these ideas need to be combated if we are ever to see success in rolling back the size and scope of government.

A lot of people fear that all these “great” services provided by government will disappear. For instance, if people were to cease paying taxes, would public education disappear? Short answer. Yes. Public education would disappear. But would education disappear? No. Private schools would flourish. People would simply pay to send their children to private schools instead of paying the government to provide a school. Standards in education would probably increase and the cost would most likely decrease since people will not have to subsidize the free riders that currently exist.

Can anyone really imagine a society where none of the services that we need would be provided without the government thieving money from us to make it happen?

The notion that the fire department would disappear and that police would be non-existent is foolish. Remember, the first fire department in human history was privately operated free of government. So clearly people can coordinate such things without being extorted by their congressman or local central planner.

In today’s world of out of control government growth, the advocates against Big Government need to embrace the ideal of a truly free and voluntary society. Government will always seek more power, no matter what reforms you put in place. When we advocate for a voluntary society, and push the dialogue towards freedom and away from semi-checked statism, we will only then start to achieve victories. Until the tone of the dialogue changes, we are in trouble from the next brand of central planners that come to power under the disguise of the Republican Party.

This post originally appeared at LibertyMovementHQ.com.

For thousands of years, governments have sought out ways to extort money from the people they lord over. These methods of extortion are broadcast to the public as good things. But, when it comes down to it, one can see that if they look behind the curtain, many of these so-called good things are nothing more than a sly move to commit grand larceny against the citizenry. many of the services are poorly carried out, or are not even done!

For instance, consider that  a portion of your paycheck is withheld each week to pay numerous types of taxes. While one might suggest that this is a service that allows people to not have to set aside a portion of their income each week to pay the taxes at the end of the year, this is nothing but a way for the government to assure that they collect the money. If people had truly planned on paying the government, they would do so without needing the money to be withheld.

If people naturally wanted to pay, there would be no reason to outlaw those that seek not to. It is because the government knows that most would not pay that they have to collect at the point of a gun. All of the services that the government provides can be performed privately, allowing market forces to dictate a fair price that will almost assuredly be cheaper than the price the government charges.

If enough people were to come to this realization, the system of taxes in this country would collapse and we would all be free of the extortion scheme put in place by government. Just a little food for thought on a snowy Friday in DC.

This was originally posted at Liberty Movement HQ.

I recently read a member post that argued that one must sometimes support the lesser of two evils. The author explained it with a metaphor, by saying that, on the one hand, if offered two unhealthful foods, one could refuse to eat either of them, but if being forced to choose between an unhealthful food and poison, one would have to take the unhealthful food to avoid the poison. Likewise, he argued, having no choice but John McCain or Barack Obama, he should have voted for John McCain rather than the third-party candidate.

It is a popular, understandable belief; an intuitive tactical judgment. But upon close examination, it is principally due to this belief that our politicians get away with betraying us.

Indeed, it is essential for success that we defeat acceptance of the lesser of two evils. Therefore, let us examine what’s wrong with supporting the lesser of two evils.
The common counter-argument that everybody is fond of is the saying, “the lesser of two evils is still evil, and I cannot support evil.” It’s glib, and weak. It does not stand up to the original argument. One could respond, “so cut off your nose to spite your face, but if tyranny is inevitable I prefer to minimize it.” That would be a valid counter-argument.

Therefore, let us discard the “I just can’t support evil” rebuttal. It’s useless, and it is used in place of much more important observations.

Another potential counter-argument, much rarer but noted by C4L political trainer Michael Rothfeld, is that it demoralizes people to be told they must choose between bad or worse, and we shouldn’t be working to demoralize people. We have all met people who refuse to be involved in politics because “the whole business is just dirty” or something like that. It truly is depressing when the candidate on “your side” is almost as bad as his opponent. As Rothfeld says: “If you’re telling someone they need to support John McCain to stop Barack Obama, or to support George Bush to beat Bill Clinton, who’s the fool there?”

This is an interesting argument, but it also performs rather poorly against the lesser-of-evil argument. It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know, or contradict the argument. Yes, it is demoralizing when you have to hold your nose to vote. That notwithstanding, one would argue, wouldn’t it still be preferable to have a lesser evil? The author of the post mentioned the Scott Brown election. Even though Scott Brown’s a neocon, he reasoned, isn’t that better than a Ted Kennedy?

A third potential counter argument is that you cannot achieve your political goals by rewarding those who vote against you. John McCain had an atrocious record of campaigning against gun rights. Had he won the election, what kind of message would have been sent to Republicans around the country? That they can be bad on gun rights and the people who care will vote for them anyway.

Rothfeld notes an example: Following the Columbine massacre, the NRA “A”-rated governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, introduced a set of anti-gun bills and a ballot initiative against gun shows (1). When a reporter asked Owens whether the move would alienate his conservative base, Owens arrogantly laughed, “what are they going to do, vote Democrat?”

This argument addresses the major problem with supporting the lesser evil: it leads directly to unaccountability. In this way, this argument is pretty tough. However, it still does not directly address the major argument about the lesser of two evils, which is that less evil is still preferable. Even if it does demoralize us, even if it does send a bad message to politicians, even if it is morally offensive, it is still pragmatic.

However, this third potential counter-argument is one aspect of the larger, vital argument, and the one that must be made whenever the “lesser of two evils” argument is made:

It just isn’t true at all.

Is Barack Obama really so much worse than John McCain? I see nothing in John McCain to suggest it. On every major issue, John McCain is with Barack Obama. Both are utterly pro-war. Both staunchly backed the massive bailouts. Both vote routinely for expanding government. Both demonstrate utter disregard for privacy, for property, and for individual liberty. Both share the same Gun Owners of America rating (F–).

Indeed, the major difference between Obama and McCain is not their policies, but their party affiliation and the public’s reaction to them.

And that is why, one could argue, John McCain had to lose.

If McCain had won, there would have been no rejection of neoconservatism, no repudiation of the Bush years and the immense harm he inflicted on our country and around the world. The Republican Party and the Republican politicians would see that they could get away with everything.

There would have been no tea parties. Where were all the principled conservatives during the Bush years, when he doubled the size of government, passed a prescription drug bill that increased the obligations of Medicare by $8 trillion (2), and signed the tyrannical PATRIOT Act?

Like a forest fire rejuvenating the soil for future growth, or like a recession to correct market distortions for future prosperity, a down-and-out Republican party is one that is ready to listen to us and learn what must change for them to bounce back. They aren’t shrugging us off anymore, and that’s a positive change.

Let’s look now at the Scott Brown victory. Is a neocon better than a Kennedy? Hardly, if you ask me. More important, however, this comes on the heels of the victory in New York’s 23rd district for a weak candidate, and victories elsewhere that portend a Democrat bloodbath in November. In Michigan, a special state Senate election saw a statist Republican take a seat from a Democrat. What message is this sending the Republican Party?

The message these victories send to the Republican Party is, “we don’t need to change anything, just let them wail under the Dems for a year and come running back into our arms.”

I don’t think the Republican Party has been in the wilderness nearly long enough yet. Let the Democrats have the reins a little longer, so they won’t be able to blame the hardship of the Obama years on “just cleaning up the mess that was left for us.” Let them see how hollow Obama’s rhetoric of hope and change truly was. Let them learn what you get when you settle for “anybody but Bush.” For their part, the Republicans need to be shown that an ideological change on their part, and a renewed commitment to principle, will be required for them to return to power. And only then may the conservatives take power and send the socialists into the wilderness.

Turning now to a race in Michigan, there is a Secretary of State election coming up. All of the candidates on both sides are lousy on Real ID, as is the retiring incumbent, a Republican. It’s certain that no matter who wins the election, the next Secretary will be bad on Real ID. So what is more beneficial to us, having a Democrat or Republican win the election? Well, if the Republican wins, it is, first of all, yet another signal to the GOP that they can take our support for granted. And second of all, if we go after the next Secretary of State on the Real ID issue, what relationship with mainstream conservatives is preferable: them resenting us for attacking a Republican who is surely saving Michigan from ACORN, or them happily joining us in clubbing a Democrat over the issue?

Rothfeld quotes an Ohio legislator, Ron Hood, putting it this way: “It’s not the devil in horns and a tail I fear; I know to run from that guy. It’s the devil in a suit quoting scripture that I worry about.”

Really, which do you prefer: an out-and-out socialist like Obama, or a crypto-socialist like George W. Bush?

Yes, the coming years are going to be rough under Obama. They would have been rough anyway. But being in the minority is sometimes a good thing. This is the best climate for political organizing for liberty in the last decade. This is a fertile climate for developing resources and building our movement.

What, then, is left to say of the “lesser of two evils” argument? Rothfeld calls it “the biggest lie in politics.” Politicians use it to keep the base in line when they betray them. Parties use it to keep the herd from leaving the ranch. But sadly, it is an appealing argument, and many well-meaning and political activists will accept it, without realizing how embracing it actually sets the cause back.

When people make the argument, never hold them at fault for it. It’s a perfectly understandable belief, just one that must be corrected. And it is one that all groups geared toward liberty should avoid making.

If you don’t have a subscription to either the print or online edition, I believe you can see a preview of the report here. I highly recommend reading this for any of you Social Network geeks like me.

I-Pad/Netbooks

On a side and somewhat related note, I recently joined the netbooking world. I must admit, this is one of the best upgrades I have ever done (second only to when I upgraded from a regular cell phone to BlackBerry). While I am overwhelmingly pleased with my new netbook, I almost wish I had held out for the new I-Pad.

Check out this informational piece on the I-Pad here.

From C4L:

“The federal government fined three airlines $175,000 Tuesday for stranding passengers on a plane overnight at the Rochester, Minnesota, airport in August.” ~ Gary Stoller, from the USA TODAY

Almost everyone who has ever flown on a commercial flight in the U.S. has found themselves sitting on the tarmac, waiting to take off or waiting to arrive at a gate and deplane. Sometimes these waits can get long. Sometimes they can get really long. I suspect, however, that no matter your horror story, you have not been stranded on a plane as long as the folks on the Continental ExpressJet flight in Minnesota in August of 2009. There’s long and then there’s all night long. Ouch. (Can a brother get a pillow?)

There is much for the student of government inefficiency to learn from the comedy of errors that led to that debacle. Certainly, the advent of increased airport security, courtesy of the TSA, in the post-9/11 world in which we live, can be blamed to some extent. Without misplaced reliance upon draconian and poorly-conceived security screening procedures, this event would not have happened.

Continue reading.

This post originally appeared at Liberty Movement HQ.

When I first began to ski (which I hadn’t done since I was 10, and wasn’t exactly an expert), I was nervous that I would collide with other people on the more elementary slopes where I started. After a few good runs down the hill, I started to notice that everyone was watching out for themselves on the hill to avoid collisions and other skiing disasters.

The slopes had several sections that would merge into one central area. People would be skiing in to the elementary slopes at high speeds from the more advanced hills. However, I saw almost no accidents! And, there was no one there policing everyone on the hills.

How could this system possibly work, one might be wondering?

I believe this was a result of people naturally protecting themselves. Everyone wanted to avoid incident. No one was particularly interested in colliding. And no one was assuming that they did not need to observe their surroundings.

No police officer was needed to direct traffic at the merge points and no government regulations were needed to keep people out of certain areas. Everyone knew naturally how to move about in an efficient way.

This isn’t to say that there were no incidents on the slopes, but I can imagine that the central planner would have been scared to see what was happening out there. The people policed themselves. And when there was incident, people naturally corrected their behavior.

This is another small example of how order will emerge naturally without force from a central planner.

This post originally appeared at Liberty Movement HQ.

This seems to have happened about an hour ago. Apparently, Michael Yon was arrested at the Seattle Airport after refusing to tell airport security how much money he earns! This seems like a resonable reason to detain someone…

On Michael Yon’s Facebook Fan Page, the following updates were posted:

Got arrested at the Seattle airport for refusing to say how much money I make. (The uniformed ones say I was not “arrested”, but they definitely handcuffed me.) Their videos and audios should show that I was polite, but simply refused questions that had nothing to do with national security. Port authority police eve…ntually came — they were professionals — and rescued me from the border bullies. (About an hour ago)

And then this update shortly after:

When they handcuffed me, I said that no country has ever treated me so badly. Not China. Not Vietnam. Not Afghanistan. Definitely not Singapore or India or Nepal or Germany, not Brunei, not Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Kuwait or Qatar or United Arab Emirates. No county has treated me with the disrespect can that can be expected from our border bullies. (About an hour ago)

So apparently when one refuses to answer questions about their salary, they have placed the nation’s security in jeopardy. This seems to be a gross overreaction from security. Yon is clearly not a security threat.

This post originally appeared at Liberty Movement HQ.