Thanks and Moving On

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

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

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

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?

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

August 30, 2012... RIP Libertarian Cause

This question is for the realist who are on board with Paul's real goal: to influence and eventually change the GOP. With everybody out of the race but Paul and Romney, and with crossover vote slowed to a halt, we can safely say that Ron Paul has 15% ceiling among Republicans. Obviously the hard work to secure delegates will pay off, but by how much? We know he will not win 1144 delegates.

At the GOP convention he might in combination with Gingrich and Santorum delegates prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot and thus get his real totals on the second vote even though Romney is almost certain to secure the nomination on the second vote.

I predict he will win 30% of the delegates. I think that is a respectable number, but will all the unrealistic supporters who still think he can win feel they were betrayed because there never was a strategy in place to win the presidency?

Of course there is also an additional problem with the exclusive delegate strategy. Next time around it will be mimicked and supplemented by neo-cons and cultural conservatives. That means the popular vote becomes a bigger cause next time around, especially without the aid of crossover voters and the likelihood that the 2016 primary (assuming Romney loses) will see two libertarian candidates dilute that constituency.

August 30 will be a sad day when all of Paul's supporters realize that a huge opportunity to advance the libertarian agenda by putting Ron Paul in the White House is lost. It's even more depressing to realize that the actuarial tables will not allow a take over of the GOP before 2024.

Can you imagine 12 more years of corporate crony rule? Oh let's not have any fantasies about a collapse being what America needs to convert everybody to libertarian. Such a collapse will find as many libertarians as progressives on the wrong end of the firing squad. If you believe otherwise, ....

2014 2016 Way to Win

I continue to look ahead to 2014 and 2016. While I have been critical of Ron Paul's delegate strategy, I do because it is the only trick in his bag. It's not a bad trick. It would be better trick in the context of coalition candidacy. The delegate strategy is attractive because it is based on the realistic assessment that we are stuck with a two party system. I don't like it but gaining influence within one of the two established parties is the only real way to political power in America.

The delegate strategy is also attractive because it puts grassroots activists in position of power where they can influence future campaigns and gain the needed experience to become viable candidates themselves. (Yes I could have made a good defense of the delegate strategy earlier but there never was a request from the campaign or any serious consideration of the coalition idea I was advocating.) How can we continue the delegate strategy, even expand it the next time around while finally building the coalition we need to win any politically significant office?

First we can, as I advocated earlier, comb the congressional districts to determine whether a libertarian or a progressive stands the best chance of being elected. Progressives and libertarians from both parties as well as the LP and  the GP need to stop diluting the vote and endorse candidates in the two major parties primaries and in the general elections.

Professionals with more knowledge than I can make the determination as to which district is more likely to lean one direction or another. My guess is target open seats occupied by neocons and blue dogs. If the district is majority Republican focus on electing the libertarian. A progressive in the Democratic primary could make waves for a few weeks and then drop out and endorse the libertarian to promote crossover voting. Of course, reverse the roles in heavily Democratic districts.

I think that both progressives and libertarians need to do more outreach to cultural conservatives. My main suggestion to both of them is: GET YOUR ASSES BACK IN CHURCH! Cultural conservatives are being raped and pillaged by corporatists. A little more sympathy and a little less derision could go a long way. More specifically, I suggest a Bible study on the topic of jubilee to spark connections among these three ideologies. More generally, both libertarians and progressives need to get back to their roots if they are going to regain the liturgical  language and messianic motivation they need to combat the corporate anti-Christ.

Building these connections is essential to gain the numbers necessary to implement the dual delegate and coalition strategy. Here's how that works:

Scenario 1 assumes Obama's re-election: In the presidential primaries we need to find two progressives and two libertarians to run for president, the former as Democrats and the latter as Republicans. They need to be teammates in the debates while pretending to be rivals. This is the key to getting more time in the debates: ignore your true opponents while disagreeing by name on minor points with your ally. Both pairs of allies should stay in the primary through Super Tuesday. At that point one progressive and one libertarian should drop out. For now, I believe that the candidates who are getting the most votes among each pair should be the drop outs.

The two drop out candidates should then immediately file to run as an independent candidacy in all states unless the Green and Libertarian parties agree to nominate the two as a coalition ticket endorsed by both parties. This coalition pair should hit the campaign trail vowing to drop out if one of the major parties would nominate one of their other coup partners.

Scenario 1A: Corporate Republicans and Democrats manage to do what they do so well by convincing the rank and file to reject the progressive and libertarian candidates. The two inside candidates lead a delegate strategy all the way to the conventions, aiming to put their corporate oppressors to a multi vote open or brokered conventions. After the chaos ends with wounded corporatist candidates, the two delegate insider candidates endorse the independent outsiders.

Scenario 1B Democrats and/or Republicans see the light and nominate one or both of our insiders. In this case our independent (or third party) candidates end their campaign. If both parties see the light, we have a real campaign between progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans but look for the corporatists to mount a write-in  or independent campaign.

If only one of the two major parties see the light, that inside candidate should reach out to other party by choosing one of our co-conspirators as the Vice Presidential running mate.

This all sounds a bit complicated but it is rather simple: share power until you bring down your opponent. Isolate them before they isolate you. And win.

Extraordinary Progressive Seeking a Suitor

I am still trying to make up my mind, now that this election is certain to not involve Ron Paul, who I should vote for. The Libertarians have decided to go sectarian instead of coalition and the Greens are likely to do the same. I would like to caste protest vote this year and since we do not have a coalition candidacy, I am leaning toward Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson. If Americans Elect ends up nominating a coalition (and by that I do not mean a moderately conservative Democrat and a conservative Republican), I may cast my vote in that direction. So far there has yet to be even one candidate qualified and my guess is Americans Elect will not nominate anyone this year.

Since I have been supportive of Ron Paul, why not Gary Johnson? Mainly because Johnson is not indicating he might cut a deal with progressives on economic issues. Governor, I have a plan that can get you 3 times the votes you are anticipating, if you are interested. (I wonder if Ron Paul or any of his staff or anyone of significance, a media personality or a Washington politician has ever read one single post I have written? If you have, please let me know. If I get what I expect, crickets, it is more evidence that ordinary citizens have zero influence on our elections and government. It would be nice to be proven wrong about this.)

With sectarian libertarianism as the alternative, I would prefer to turn to Anderson and Stein. (If they or Johnson wish to contact me, I am here.) However, if Ron Paul condemns Obama and makes nice with Romney, I'll take that to mean he is endorsing him and will force me, since I live in a swing state, to vote for Obama again. He would not raise military sending as much as Romney would. And he would do a better job at protecting what remains of domestic discretionary spending and entitlements. I do not want to vote for Obama but Ron Paul, failing to endorse Johnson,  will force me to make this lesser evil choice.

I guess I could vote for Romney to punish the Democrats for betraying their base but I fear Romney will stimulate the economy with a war against Iran along with a war in Latin America. Obama might choose the same course but my guess is he'll try to do an Ike by promoting green energy through the pentagon budget and air and ground transportation and port modernization through the homeland security budget.

The choices are depressing. Maybe there is someone to cheer me up. Gary? Jill? Rocky? Any of you want to come a courting? I am cheap. Just a little attention could get you this headline: "Ron Paul's Leading Progressive Supporter Endorses...." I think I have at least earned the adjective for this rare constituency.

"This the way the world ends..."

As the cause to elect Ron Paul comes to an end, I must determine who to endorse in the general election. Americans Elect may hold Ron Paul's last opportunity to change his mind but my thought is Ron Paul does not want AE and AE does not want Ron Paul. It's too bad because if Paul were to accept AE's endorsement he would have to choose a Democratic running mate. Why his highly determined followers have not forced this opportunity by massively flooding AE the way they have done every internet poll of this campaign is beyond me.

I am considering advocating for Buddy Roemer and Rocky Anderson or if AE gives the nod to another corporate campaign or decides that there is not enough interest to run a candidate, I will probably choose between Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein.If Ron Paul's passive non-endorsement of anybody gets spun as an endorsement of Romney, I will be forced to vote for Obama.

I will probably have a few more posts on this blog. If there are any publishers out there truly interested in something outside the box, contact me here. Regardless, I will be announcing a new blog which will seek to develop this strategy and the all important policy consensus which is needed to beat the corporate beast. Look for that announcement to come soon.

I do not look forward to another 4 years of Republican obstructionism and Democratic acquiescence, but because tribalism trumps truth that is what we all must now face.

Peace.

Is Romney Trying to Censor Uncomfortable Questions

Hard to tell what the motivations are. Perhaps this is an Obama superpac idea for embarrassing Mitt Romney.or perhaps it is Romney's legal team trying to pre-empt reporters from asking tough questions:

http://toughquestionsformittromney.blogspot.com/2012/05/campaign-killing-questions-for-mitt.html

Now that the Libertarian Party has decided to go tribal and sectarian, Ron Paul will finish this race in second place in the delegate count without an option for a third party run unless we mange to get hisw mname on the Americans Elect ballot.

I too am very skeptical about AE's intentions but it is mind boggling that the millions of ardent supporters of Ron Paul have not flooded this site. ye

An Open Tactical Appeal to the Libertarian Party

As you begin your national convention you are faced with a great dilemma as well as more than one grand opportunities to grow your party's influence.You should be a major political party but one of your former candidates has been scaling the wall to political acceptability in a way that may eventually threaten the need for your existence. Ron Paul's effort to change the GOP into the de facto libertarian party has thus far failed. He apparently is unwilling to abandon this effort and is hopeful that with each coming election, actuarial numbers and electoral defeats eventuate this reality.

He may be right but perhaps there is a way to speed up this process or redirect it in your favor. I, for one, do not see any near term triumphalism of any third party, but I can foresee a splitting of the two major parties into five, global corporatist (I'm sure they will call themselves something deceptively different like Democratic Republicans), cultural conservative, libertarian, labor and green peace. But that's a long term project as well. A short term strategy beginning with your convention goes something like this:

1.) Nominate Gary Johnson without a running mate, giving him the option to be either the presidential or vice presidential candidate in the general election.

2.)Schedule a second convention to coincide with the Democratic party's convention in Charlotte for the purpose of nominating a running mate for Johnson.

3.) Since it is probable that Paul will lose the nomination at the GOP convention, offer him either the presidential or vice presidential spot after he gives his prime time speech at the GOP convention.

4.) At your current convention, prepare an alternative coalition platform to serve as a basis for offering a progressive candidate the vice presidential slot on your ticket if Paul refuses the first offer.

5.) In this alternative coalition platform you should put the common ground planks in , of course. However, you should also offer the following pledges:

       A.) Move 3 trillion dollars out of the federal government through reductions in current spending levels and elimination or consolidation of non-essential programs and departments, with most of the cuts coming MIC, corporate welfare, drug wars and other areas progressives agree need deep cuts.

       B.)Raise 1 trillion dollars through the following measures: Reforming and/ or replacing the current income and payroll tax system in a manner that significantly reduces the overall tax burden on at least 90% of the population while raising taxes on not more than 2% of the populations. Reforming our tariff system to base rates on human, civil, labor, consumer and investor rights and on environmental stewardship and justice. Legalizing socially dubious behaviors, products and services while strictly regulating,  tightly zoning and substantially taxing the like in non-prohibitive ways. All reforms should move us toward a simple, clear and transparent tax system with greater real progressivity oriented  toward collections based more on consumption and less on savings and investment

       C.) Take the 4 trillion gained from A and B and apply half of it to debt reduction and the other half to block grants to the states based solely on populations of the states to be used as each state chooses with each state publishing online in open, clear and transparent detail how every penny is allocated.

       D.) Appoint an inclusive and balanced coalition cabinet.

These 4 planks are the basis for progressives and libertarians advancing their economic agendas simultaneously: lower taxes, less federal government  and more states' rights for libertarians, more money  made available to the states to do what progressives have wanted the federal government to do while not destroying the social social security, medicare, medicaid and other economic safety nets, and substantial job growth and debt reduction for both.

6.) If Ron Paul decides not accept your offer or to run as an independent, write-in, or other third party ticket, offer the vice presidential slot along with the above coalition platform to Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson. If both are on come on board, offer a prominent cabinet spot or chief of staff to Rocky Anderson.

This plan is not an ideal one for you or for progressive parties and candidates. It is, however, the basis for a winning strategy which advances your cause and ours. The coalition platform necessary to win the presidential election and to secure the requisite support of congress is not a permanent commitment and may or may not be abandoned or renegotiated after 4 years.

Most of all this a plan which provides a politically realistic path to a peaceful overthrow of the corporate duopoly which holds our nation hostage to a privileged elite who seek to make their sovereignty permanent through increasing the powers of big government, big business, big labor and big military.

Such a plan calls for political guts and heroism. Nothing less will save our nation from permanent tyranny. Please do this difficult task before its too late! You have nothing to loose but your chains.

Action Alert

The campaign may be over and you may be as discouraged as I am. The temptation is to do nothing since it's all been done before and nothing work. Corporate media will just ignore us again. What if we could for once give unambiguous proof of their corruption.

Right now there is a petition asking CNN, Fox and MSNBC for one last debate, Paul v. Romney. No debate is more needed by us and less wanted by our opponents. If we flood this petition with signatures, maybe even crashing change.org with a petition bomb it can be revealed for all the world to see how prefabricated this race has been.

Can you imagine this petition going viral and ever Ron Paul supporter getting one no Paul support to sign. we could have a million signatures within a week or less. If every major media in America ignored it, it would at least be news worthy in the rest of the world. Let's imagine the big three spin:

"We've already had 100 debates." And 101 is going to make your ratings drop? This debate would be the most popular of the year. Remember when it got down to Hillary and Barack? This time around we would actually hear two very different candidates  with tow very different set of policies debate one another for a change.


"Romney will refuse." Give him a chance to show his chicken feathers  and show us you are not in collusion with him by asking.


"Romney has already won." Technically, he has not and what harm would having the top rated debate of the primary season, especially since there will not be another debate before September. Do you actually think anybody wants to tune in to the current coverage of another 10 dozen asbergian victory speeches between now and then?


You get the picture. Signing this petition is a win-win for Paul supporters. On the off chance one of these networks decides to indulge us, we get to expose Romney for the wimp he truly is. If a network will do it, they win the ratings war big time for at least 2 hours and the other 2 will defintely wan their chance.

This Might Help My Home State

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VcH5cS0cgA&list=UU1vTH0ByVIcIOB83FbvHP7Q&index=2&feature=plcp

Beyond the Bad News of 2012: Getting it Right Next Time

The likelihood that Ron Paul will not be a contender in the general election is not an encouraging prospect. The debates between President Obama and Governor Romney are likely to focus on rhetorical rather than substantive disagreements.  Where there are significant policy differences, neither party will be able to claim a mandate given the nature and rules of the US Senate.

The most likely outcome of this campaign is an Obama victory given the fact that many of Ron Paul’s followers will vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul.  I would like for that to be encouraging since I voted for Obama and support much of the agenda his rhetoric espouses (at least as we get closer to election time). However, I do not believe that much will change during Obama 2.

If Obama is reelected, 2016 will have a about two dozen candidates to choose from. Surely there will be at least one or two libertarian candidates in the Republican field and a similar number among progressive Democrats. This makes it even less likely that a either a libertarian or a progressive will be nominated since the coalition needed to get close will not be available during the primaries and caucuses.

I would therefore propose that the top progressive Democrat and the top libertarian Republican should get together for an independent run not long after Super Tuesday. 

In anticipation of this trans-partisan ticket several conferences in a variety of locales ought to be convened for the purpose of building a coalition among cultural conservatives, libertarians and progressives. 

I add the first of these three because they are as much victims of corporatism as the other two. Even though they are more theologically disposed to supporting such political sadomasochism, we should not give up hope that cultural conservatives will see the light, that libertarians and progressives threaten their values much less than do corporatists.

Participants in such conferences ought to be encouraged to create and consider legislative proposals which bridge their ideological divides in the most mutually empowering ways. The goal need not be creating a new party or political synthesis (although such an outcome might be very much welcomed).  These conferences ought to aim at composing a coalition platform and recruiting congressional candidates to support it. Before the midterm primaries we ought to agree to a list of candidates to endorse at least at the federal level.

When we compile this list we are likely to find candidates from both major parties, alternate parties and among the growing non-aligned. While such candidates may have good reasons to stay with their current affiliation, they should be encouraged to register to run in the most opportune primary. Additionally voters among the coalition should be encouraged to register to vote for the candidates in their respective districts who endorse the coalition platform. 

What we most want to avoid is running two coalition candidates in the same race. Diluting the vote is a sure way to undermine our cause. Caution should be taken to ferret out posers working in conscious or unconscious concert with establishment parties and campaigns.

It is unlikely that we would get a large number of candidates who would endorse a coalition platform, but where they are found they should receive ample support locally and nationally, taking care to match candidate with districts more likely to go coalition. This may or may not be a swing district. It is more likely that we stand our best chances in districts without an incumbent in the race. A shorter list of candidates also means that resources can be more focused.

Avoiding the typical wedge issues as litmus tests is essential. Whether a candidate is pro life or pro choice should be tertiary in importance, considered mostly for demographic fit. Emphasis should be placed on issues of debt, jobs, war, peace, and civil liberties. 


Here's the basic theme for this coalition to contrast with the duopoly's corporate platform: The corporate establishment believes that war means more jobs and they would be right except that the jobs of war create more costly destruction. Peace frees up money to pay down debt and invest in the infrastructure of a green economy. A green economy is a life giving economy which reduces costs and frees up more money for more debt reduction, savings and spending. 

This message and platform could evolve over time into a new synthesis but that should not be the aim, at least not before we are successful in overthrowing the corporate beast. My guess is we will eventually move forward not to a post-partisan era but toward a multi-partisan mix of competition, cooperation and transitory coalitions.

Making this plan before grieving the current loss may be unrealistic but we must head off the easy and much expected tribal reactions. Corporatism has won this battle; they can only win the war if they keep this coalition from happening. Their ultimate goal is just enough stability to keep those on the edge hopeful, afraid and powerless.

I'd like to try again to bust their agenda if anyone is interested in doing what it takes rather than retreating to our tribal sects.