United Liberty

A new story from Neil Munro at the Daily Caller is making the rounds of the blogosphere. The main focus of the article is that Obama’s new strategy will be to paint Mitt Romney as a radical libertarian, which to actual libertarians is so laughable it’s genuinely sad. But I’m sure my colleagues are going to tackle that main point, and I will certainly get to it in just a bit. But there are some things that immediately jump out at me I feel need to be focused on.

First, there’s this tidbit, which I emphasized in bold:

President Barack Obama is previewing his next strategy in the 2012 campaign — an audacious effort to paint former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and the majority GOP as radical libertarians that have abandoned mainstream American politics.

Since 2000, “we [Democrats] haven’t moved that much… What’s changed is the Republican Party,” Obama told a group of wealthy donors gathered Monday night at a New York town-house owned by Marc Lasry. Lasry is a billionaire equity-capitalist who runs a $20 billion fund that buys up the shaky assets of failing companies.

In what is surely going to set off another wankfest amongst the libertarian commentariat, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson has become eligible for federal matching funds:

The Federal Election Commission has declared Gary Earl Johnson eligible to receive federal matching funds. Johnson sought and won the Libertarian nomination for president for 2012.

To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual. Other requirements to be declared eligible include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records and permitting an extensive campaign audit.

Based on documents filed by Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. on April 27, 2012, contributions from the following states were verified for threshold purposes: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington. All of the materials included with this submission may be viewed here. Based on Johnson’s initial threshold submission, the Commission requested on May 25 that the United States Treasury make an initial payment of $100,000 to Johnson’s campaign.

Once declared eligible, campaigns may submit additional contributions for matching funds on the first business day of every month. The maximum amount a primary candidate could receive is currently estimated to be about $22.8 million.

Rants are nothing new, and they’re always popular. Who doesn’t love to watch a video of somebody totally losing it? Particularly if the person in question is a legislator.

The last time, it was Anthony Weiner, well before he decided to show his, erm, weiner, on Twitter. That was actually pretty funny, I admit, but I think what Mike Bost, Illinois State Representative, had to say was far, far better:

AKA “The Only Scandal Conservatives Need”

Executive Summary:

• 69,000 jobs added (That’s far too weak for even a piddling recovery)
• +.1% unemployment, up to 8.2%
• 12.7 million Americans unemployed
• +.2% to civilian labor force participation, up to 63.8
• 8.1 million Americans employed just part-time for economic reasons
• 2.4 million Americans marginally attached to the labor force
• 830,000 discouraged workers
• March and April job increases revised downwards
• Sure path to Obama’s defeat in November

The May jobs report has just been released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics…and it’s awful. It’s one of the weakest reports all year, and has shown quite clearly that the “Hope N’ Change” policies of President Obama are not working. According to the BLS press release:

Nonfarm payroll employment changed little in May (+69,000), and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 8.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care, transportation and warehousing, and wholesale trade but declined in construction. Employment was little changed in most other major industries.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons (12.7 million) and the unemployment rate (8.2 percent) changed little in May. (See table A-1.)

Nicholas Freiling over at Values & Capitalism—a blog run by the American Enterprise Institute—has a well meaning but utterly misguided—and I would argue, rather silly—post about bankruptcy and student loans. It is inappropriately titled “Student Loan Forgiveness: One Idea That Doesn’t Deserve to Graduate.” He says:

If you are like most college students, you have already accrued a considerable amount of student loan debt. College is expensive, and without student loans many would simply be unable to obtain a college education.

But over the past few months, many have begun to question the efficacy of borrowing so much money—even for a purpose as worthy as education. Recently, the Chicago Tribune reported that student loan debt reached $870 billion—surpassing both car and credit card debt—and is projected to climb rapidly over the next few years.

Thus, it is understandable that The Fairness for Struggling Students Act (FSSA) has become high on the agenda for many government and education officials. The FSSA would allow student loan debt from private lenders to be wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings. Seen as a remedy for a growing economic problem, the Act has found support among many in government and academic circles.

But the reality is: The FSSA is an unjust bill that should warrant no support from respectable students, no matter how indebted they are.

So basically, what FSSA would say is that student loan debt would be treated like…every other single type of debt? So it wouldn’t be, you know, a “special” and “unique” form of debt that people could not erase, but would be treated like debt from any other source, like a mortgage or a car loan or anything like that?

And this is bad thing? Where does he get this idea from?

Every election year, both major parties start up wth “wasted vote” rhetoric to convince those of us who don’t buy into their policies to not vote for a third party. The fear of 2000 still weighs heavily on their minds, it seems. I’ve always contended that, in a democracy, the only wasted vote is the vote you give to someone who you disagree with, since it entirely defeats the very point of, you know, a democracy.

But if we’re going to go down the wasted vote road, for once, let’s do it on the Democrats’ and Republicans’ terms, so they can see the folly of their argument. Mine is thus:

If you live in a non-battleground state, any vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate is wasted.

You heard that right.

This year, according to the AP, the battleground states are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Of course, this list is bound to change within the next six months, and I’ve seen that there may be as many as 12 “swing states” (a near-synonym for “battleground states”). Charlie Cook—one of the best political pundits out there—takes out New Hampshire and North Carolina and swaps in Pennsylvania instead. It doesn’t matter the exact state right now; in the weeks leading up to the election, you will definitely know if your state is a battleground or not based on how many ads you get, and how many visits candidates make.