Other voices from the left:

Unlike Koerner but like myself, these two are real progressives, not libertarians. O! for a thousand tongues to sing or better yet, lift every voice and sing:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul’s-challenge-to-the-left/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/evilism-there-is-no-lesser/

Crashing the Party and the Likely Policy Course of a Ron Paul Presidency

This in many ways is a counter intuitive argument since Ron Paul is a libertarian in every respect. He does see eye to eye with progressives like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders on war and peace, civil liberties, drug policy and foreign policy. He even opposes NAFTA and other corporatist trade deals. However, in general, Paul sees almost all federal government intervention in the economy as unconstitutional and/or hazardous to economic health.

Despite real differences on economic issues there are several reasons for progressives to embrace the unconventional strategy of jumping ship to join Republican primaries and vote for Ron Paul. The main reason is our president has governed in a conservative way and that governance has led to almost no job growth. Whether his motives are good or not is irrelevant. We cannot expect him to fulfill his progressive promises once he is re-elected, especially given the likelihood that Republicans in congress will block any attempt to make progressive reforms of any sort.

So how is voting for Ron Paul going to change this? First of all Ron Paul wants to make massive cuts in military spending. He not only wants to immediately end the wars we are in now, he wants to bring troops home from hundreds of foreign bases around the world. He wants to end the stupid and wasteful war on drugs. This could mean at least $500 billion in annual savings. Paul wants to use half the savings to pay down debt and half to shore up social security and medicare.

Why would a consistent libertarian like Paul want to put more money into social security and medicare? He dreams of a day when young people can opt out of this system and when they do, there needs to be extra funds available for those already in the system. Progressives as well as moderates from both parties are not likely to allow this to happen for very obvious reasons. When they squash this fantasy, Ron Paul has to make a deal about what to do with that money? Putting all of it into Medicare and Social Security will be unnecessary and Paul is not likely  to unconditionally deposit extra funds into the two largest government social programs.

Instead he is likely to want that half to go toward deep tax cuts and/or more debt reduction. He will have to make a deal with congress, one which has a few more libertarians and progressives resulting from the 2012 Paul vs. Obama race. That will give progressives an opportunity to do what Obama has not done: provide significant, immediate and long term funding for building the peaceful green economy.
Progressives might be able to work with Paul on tax reform by replacing the income tax with a progressive consumption tax.  At a minimum, the new congress could agree with him to greater reductions for 99% of all tax payers in exchange for a minor increase for the top 1% (which btw Democrats could propose now and save themselves from political ruin).

Progressives will probably want to directly fund green infrastructure but Paul and his allies on the right will most likely block this move. Progressives will then try to send the money to the states with a mandate. That will probably not work either. Finally progressives will agree to let the money go to the states unconditionally. That's not ideal as some states will take advantage of the opportunity to give more tax breaks to the rich. If however the money is divided according to state populations, much of the money will go into the hands of more progressive states since they tend to be also the more highly populated ones (Texas and Florida being the biggest exceptions). In any case, progressive states can vote to use the money for single payer systems, high speed rail, schools, teacher salaries, etc.

Paul is unlikely to run a second term given his age, but a one term coalition of libertarians and progressives will be very different from what we have now, Democrats bending over backwards to prove they are strong on defense and fiscal austerity. Such a one term coalition is likely to have long term effects, perhaps forcing cultural conservatives to form a separate political party and maybe even putting a few loan sharks and neo-cons in jail. More likely, it will give the American people an opportunity to compare two very different economic strategies and maybe find a new synthesis.
This may be a long shot political strategy and I don't doubt the odds that are against Ron Paul. He will not win without a large number of progressives infiltrating the GOP.

Progressives are frustrated. They do not have the president they voted for and running a Feingold against him in the Democratic primary is a sure fire strategy for further weakening Obama and getting us the first Mormon president. There are very few down ticket races that are not already predetermined so with few exceptions there is no reason not to jump ship. Jumping ship for the primaries does not prevent progressives from voting for Democrats in the general election. In fact, progressives could vote for down ticket extremists to provide Democrats with weak competition in the general election. Alternatively, progressives could help nominate libertarians to compete against blue dogs in the general election.

Finally, can you imagine the GOP convention? With this strategy in place,  chaos worse than 1968 Chicago breaks out along with actually real entertainment on TV for all the nation to see. Can you think of any more fitting punishment for a party that has done so much damage to our culture, economy and political process? That's a party worth crashing.

Now One for Progressives

Imagine for a moment McCain is president. It's 2 days after Super Tuesday  2012. Two candidates have emerged from the pack. Candidate A is calling for a freeze on domestic discretionary spending and cuts in social security and medicare benefits. Candidate B is calling for a 50% cuts in defense and security spending. From those cuts, B wants to use half to pay down debt and half to increase domestic spending. Who are you going to vote for?

Shoe on the other Foot Analogy for Libertarians

Imagine for a moment a counter factual history. Mitt Romney is elected president in 2008. He carries on the neo-con policies of military Keynesianism cloaked in the cover of the rhetoric of free enterprise. 2012 rolls around and Libertarians are understandably frustrated with the way Romney has governed. 

The Democratic presidential primary is heating up. The usual suspects are in the mix including our Quixotic Kucinich. He goes about calling for the Fed to be audited and for congress to take back its constitutional authority to print money, the need to roll back not only the wars but the military industrial complex, and the need to restore civil liberties, etc. 

All of this basically appeals to libertarians but then Kucinich is very explicit that he does not want to decrease the size of government but instead wants to provide all of the savings from pentagon spending for use in building the peaceful green economy. On top of that he wants a much more progressive income tax structure. 

Meanwhile Romney throws the occasional bone to libertarians about reducing the size of government and lowering and flattening taxes below the current Bush margins while complaining about the obstructionist Democrat party in the congress. Who are libertarians going to vote for? Most likely they are going to stay with Romney or vote for the Libertarian party candidate despite the broad areas of agreement they have with Kucinich. 

Now imagine further that Kucinich sees the handwriting on the wall and knows that he is not getting elected without a stronger outreach to libertarians. What do you think he's going to do? Jump up and down screaming louder about ending the warfare government and restoring our civil liberties? Very few libertarians are going to even glance his way except maybe to see if Elizabeth is standing beside him during his rhetorical vertical leaps. 

If instead he says, "Look... I know that we are in a debt crisis and that I am not going to get tax reform and significant domestic spending increases unless I am willing to make some concessions. I tell you what... I will reduce my spending proposals by half and apply the other half to paying down our national debt. Additionally, I am going to get rid of the income tax and replace it with a progressive consumption tax and incentivized tariffs so that 98% of all Americans get their taxes reduced below the current Bush margins. Any new revenue gained from such reform I will apply 100% to the paying down the debt."

Libertarian hearts start racing and their feet get to moving as they prepare to jump ship. 

Excerpt from conversation with Robin Koerner on Blue Republican FB page

•  Robin, Am I right to assume that you have always been libertarian in your economic thinking? I ask this question not to pick a quarrel but to point out that this site will be ineffectual in reaching progressive Democrats if it does not tackle the economic philosophical difference. By tackle I do not mean to convert the progressive to libertarian economics. Instead what needs to happen is to promote and build upon Ron Paul's transition plan which calls for deep cuts in empire building and maintenance to be used equally for debt reduction and shoring up social security and medicare. The sticking point would be that we will not need that much to shore up these programs except that Ron Paul wants this as a spring board for young people to opt out of the system. What progressives need to know is that when the opt out goes the way of the public option that the funds are made available for other domestic concerns. If Ron Paul can say yes to that, he can have millions of progressives moving towards him. This is the only way he gets nominated and it does not change the dollar amount of his debt reductions a single dime. This is what Paul needs to clarify and what libertarians such as yourself ought to play up as big as possible. If your focus is on converting blue dogs then good luck with that. Blue dogs are hooked on military contracts and a waste of time. Progressives are the only major group in play. If you want to say help us stop wars and restore civil liberties and let us take complete control of economic policy, you have as much chance as we would of getting you to support Kucinich for president in 2016.
  

  
  
• 
  
• Thanks BR for your thoughtful response. I would classify myself as a pragmatic progressive who sees the mixed economy as usually producing the best outcomes. Tempting as it is to get into a philosophical discussion or even an economic policy discussion, I would like to focus on the political question, what will get Ron Paul in the White House so he can do what is needed to bring us beyond this corporatist crisis? The only way I see Ron Paul getting elected is through the formation of a libertarian/progressive coalition. He has to therefore reach out to progressives without betraying his ideals. I am sure you are familiar with his transition plan. In it he wants to devote 50% of the savings from cuts mostly in military adventures and policing overseas to shoring up the social safety net. Some might think he has violated his principles with such a concession. I do not. He is doing so because he realizes a giant change will not come overnight without grave suffering on the part of those who are dependent on the current system. He is also motivated by the desire to establish a means by which young people can opt out of the system. He knows they cannot be given the freedom to leave the system high and dry while millions are still in the system. Again this is not a compromise on principles but an attempt to be realistic about the means to reach this goal. The goal is a significant reduction in federal government spending and a shift away from federal interventionism to local responsibility. The means includes economic concessions of a specific amount going towards federal intervention for the purpose of providing economic security to those in need.
  
• 
  
• 
  

   If we can start with that conversation, we can see how this ought to attract progressives. We are proud of how social security and medicare have lifted millions of seniors out of poverty (although I am sure you will dispute that). So when we see that Ron Paul is going beyond your paradigm of liberty as the means to equality to a an additional paradigm of social intervention as a means to liberty, we progressives are encouraged. That is where you are going to move progressives. You can't do it with the same old join us... we will do what we like together and what we disagree on we will do my way. 
  
• 
   Imagine for a moment a counter factual history. Mitt Romney is elected president in 2008. He carries on the neo-con policies of military Keynesianism cloaked in the cover of the rhetoric of free enterprise. 2012 rolls around and Libertarians are understandably frustrated with the way Romney has governed. The Democratic presidential primary is heating up. The usual suspects are in the mix including our Quixotic Kucinich. He goes about calling for the Fed to be audited and for congress to take back its constitutional authority to print money, the need to roll back not only the wars but the military industrial complex, and the need to restore civil liberties, etc. All of this basically appeals to libertarians but then Kucinich is very explicit that he does not want to decrease the size of government but instead wants to provide all of the savings from pentagon spending for use in building the peaceful green economy. On top of that he wants a much more progressive income tax structure. Meanwhile Romney throws the occasional bone to libertarians about reducing the size of government and lowering and flattening taxes below the current Bush margins while complaining about the obstructionist Democrat party in the congress. Who are libertarians going to vote for? Most likely they are going to stay with Romney or vote for the Libertarian party candidate despite the broad areas of agreement they have with Kucinich. 
  

  
  
• 
  

   Now imagine further that Kucinich sees the handwriting on the wall and knows that he is not getting elected without a stronger outreach to libertarians. What do you think he's going to do? Jump up and down screaming louder about ending the warfare government and restoring our civil liberties? Very few libertarians are going to even glance his way except maybe to see if Elizabeth is standing beside him during his rhetorical vertical leaps. If instead he says, "Look... I know that we are in a debt crisis and that I am not going to get tax reform and significant domestic spending increases unless I am willing to make some concessions. I tell you what... I will reduce my spending proposals by half and apply the other half to paying down our national debt. Additionally, I am going to get rid of the income tax and replace it with a progressive consumption tax and incentivized tariffs so that 98% of all Americans get their taxes reduced below the current Bush margins. Any new revenue gained from such reform I will apply 100% to the paying down the debt. Libertarian hearts start racing and their feet get to moving as they prepare to jump ship. I hope this analogy is helpful in explaining what I see missing from your appeal, I do not disagree with your appeal. I only say that if it were effective, Ron Paul would be running for reelection to the white house in 2012.
• 
  
  
• 
  
• 
  

  
  

Plan B since it looks like we might need it

If as seems likely Ron Paul does not win the nomination, he and we may want to consider a a coalition ticket running against Obama and the GOP nominee. A few months ago I would have said no to this idea but given the current situation of plans to cut social programs as deeply as military, I have begun to have second thoughts.

The president has conceded too much and it is naive to believe that the constitutionally questionable super congress is  going to do anything but reject progressive tax reform. The most that the president would be able to do it seems is to allow all of the Bush tax cuts to expire which would put added burdens on middle income folks. The bottom line is the president has completely abandoned the progressive economic agenda.

I do hold out hope for Ron Paul getting the nomination but the outreach to progressives is slow. It may be that the campaign wants that outreach to be grassroots oriented rather than official so as not to offend Republican voters. He may gain some ground with cultural conservatives with that strategy but with there being several violence loving cultural conservative candidates in the race, his gains there will be severely limited.  The cultural conservatives who would vote for him are not the type who harbor paranoid views about progressives, so I don't think this current unofficial outreach strategy has any merit. Unless he openly courts progressives for crossover votes, the primary is lost.

If the primary is lost, Ron Paul needs to reach out to progressives and form a candidacy, complete with running mate and proposed cabinet. Under plan A,  I have suggested that Gary Johnson be Paul's running mate. Under plan B, I would suggest Johnson be appointed OMB director and make Dennis Kucinich Vice President.

 I would suggest that Paul hold off on naming Secretary of State and hint that he might want Obama to take that role. Obama, despite his fumbles, still has respect in the international community, and candidate Paul openingly considering this possibility would allay fears of isolationism and extremism. Joe Biden might also be considered for this post.

Defense might also be kept open and John McCain's name be mentioned; although, his apprehnsion toward substantial pentagon cuts might disqualify him. In the alternative, Jesse Ventura has long been a Ron Paul fan and has proved he is more than an entertainer. If not this post, Ventura ought to be recommended for CIA Chief or National Security Advisor. Ventura, being the patriot that he is, will deflect charges of isolation and treason that will  inevitably arise as deep cuts are made in the military industrial complex.

As Commerce Secretary, Paul might consider appointing the great job killer, Mitt Romney to fire himself by closing the department if he cannot show that it really does support job creating businesses. Again, shield against extremist charges. In the alternative, appoint Romney ambassador to France and give the position to Ralph Nader because what we need now in our commerce is a real extremist advocating fair and open trade.

At Labor under plan A, I have advocated Kucinich and I am not changing my mind by pushing for Bernie Sanders. Sanders could also serve as Treasury Secretary but let's do something for ordinary Americans for a change and make Elizabeth Warren the woman who signs our notes. If Bernanke does not open the books and vaults, fire him immediately and put Robert Reich in his place.

At Agriculture give Jim Hightower the mission to end subsidies for giant agribusinesses while encouraging local producers, farmers' markets, farmers' cooperatives and hemp. Throw the cultural conservatives a bone and tell Secretary of Interior Sarah Palin to get back to her redistributive populist roots in her dealings with big oil. Keep her in line by making Robert Kennedy, Jr. head of the EPA.

While Attorney General Napolitano prosecutes her husband and the rest of the bipartisan gang of war criminals, put Laura Bush in charge of dismantling No Child Moving Ahead while empowering responsible, intelligent, creative and enthusiastic teachers and local school districts with the funding, support and recognition they need and deserve. If she can get that in place locally everywhere, grant President Paul his wish and close the doors.

Let Jessie Ventura appoint an undersecretary for homeland security to dismantle it and merge what is working with agencies in the defense, intelligence and state departments. While he is at that, have Howard Dean merge the DEA and the ATF with Health and Human Services.

Appoint Michael Dukakis to build a real interstate high speed rail system supplemented by well funded state and local public transportation systems. Let him work out a trust busting and jobs replacing  agreement with the Boeing, Lockheed, etc. to build a new generation of larger, faster, more fuel efficient commercial airplanes. Put the FCC under his wings and make affordable universal high speed internet a reality. Pay for all of this by raising the gasoline tax to a dollar a gallon with discounts of a penny for each percent of renewable fuels and by selling the Interstate highway system to states and private companies.

I am sure my libertarian friends would like to replace a number of these appointees while my progressive friends are spewing hot coffee all over their keyboards when they read a few names. In the end what needs to be done is a to name a truly trans-partisan executive branch after the primaries and ahead of the general election while sticking to a modified version of Ron Paul's transition plan which we will call henceforth the American Democracy Renewal plan. OK we'll call it the American Democratic Republic Constitution Renewal Plan.

I welcome other suggestions as we need to get this Plan B in together before all the prefabricated destruction takes place.

The Bad Deal and a Hoped for Better One

When it seems to me most urgent that we have a renewal of the New Deal, the president has agreed to 2.5 trillion dollars in cuts over the next 10 years. The good news is defense is on the table. The bad news is domestic discretionary spending is on the table to the tune of half of those cuts. Considering the fact that military spending far outweighs domestic discretionary spending, this is a regressive deal.

A super committee is responsible for writing the details of this deal and that raises some serious constitutional questions. Whether any new revenue will ever be raised to contribute to this reduction remains to be seen but given that 50% of the super committee will be beholden to the tea party, we can all but be assured that progressive tax adjustments are out of the picture.

Given this bad deal, let us imagine a coalition of progressives and libertarians offering an alternative. First, match the maximum size of these cuts and then double it. That's 5 trillion dollars. Lets take 4 trillion of that from projected defense and security spending and 1 trillion from domestic spending. Next, apply half of that (2.5 trillion again) exclusively to debt reduction. Take the other 2.5 trillion and reallocate that toward domestic spending. Use half of that (1.25 trillion)to shore up Medicare and Medicaid and distribute the other 1.25 trillion dollars to the states according to population. Allow the states to do with the money exactly as they please.

This would mean that the federal government would be reduced in spending power by 3.75 trillion over the 10 year period and that states in desperate need of cash could pay teachers, police, etc. or simply put it in a rainy day fund if they thought their spending levels were sufficient or even give it back to their residents in the form of tax breaks.

Such a deal would satisfy libertarians in that the overall size of the federal government would be significantly reduced. With the federal government spending less, it borrows less and frees up capital for private enterprise. Additionally, this deal would go a long way toward satisfying the libertarian belief that constitutionally states (rather than the federal government) are allowed to make decisions according to their respective constitutions concerning government spending on education, transportation, etc.

It would further be an opportunity for libertarians in their respective states to prove that the states can do a much better job with domestic priorities. And for the more lustful of the laissez faire, here is their opportunity to have more influence in reigning in all levels of government spending and returning money to tax payers.

This may not sound like a fair deal to progressives so far, but we might  want to consider that shoring up Medicare and Medicaid might be an opportunity to expand these programs, moving us closer to a real universal public option, if not a single payer system.

Additionally, each state could take its share of the 1.25 trillion and use it to build high speed rail and other forms of public transportation and update the technology and infrastructure of its public schools while paying teachers in a manner worthy of their high calling.

Given that the more progressive states are also generally the more populated states, the prospect for proving our progressive ideas work best for the most people will be greatly enhanced. It may be better to provide funds in this manner than if we left this up to a minority controlled Senate and a reactionary House.

One final aspect of this agreement would be to replace our current income tax system with a much more steeply graduated progressive consumption tax http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/robert-frank-we.html . Any new revenues gained from this or any other reform in the tax code could be used exclusively for paying down the national debt or according to the above formula as congress and the president see fit.

This satisfies libertarians by removing income and savings from being taxed and shifts taxation in a voluntary direction based on how much one spends. It potentially could shift more money away from the government and toward the private sector by the former paying down its debt faster.

For progressives, if a progressive consumption tax were passed, it would be much more progressive than our current system and rectify the general perception that Democrats are aiming to exclude everybody each time one of its functionaries mentions targeted tax relief.

For both libertarians and progressives such a deal would be significantly better than the one in the works. For realistic libertarians and progressives, this would mean that they both have to put aside their penchants for political purity and be willing to vote and to act in unconventional ways in the upcoming election.