Get Ready for More Taxes, Spending and Regulation

This article in today's Wall St Journal predicts that a big Democrat victory will result in the biggest swing to the left since FDR or LBJ. Massive new programs that will be difficult to reverse will be enacted. Huge new revenues subject to all sorts of political patronage, such as national health and Cap and Trade Carbon credits will flow in. The party will attempt to consolidate power by suppressing dissent through regulation of the internet and radio stations and changing voter laws. Secret ballots for unions will be eliminated, opening the way for union strong arm tactics. I can't believe it when I hear the some "libertarians" actually lean to the Democrat side.
Obama's Super Majority

Share this

On the other side

On the other side, I will get to see whether one of my predictions pans out. Popular left wing sites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Digg have been "speaking truth to power". I predict that when Democrats take over those sites will largely side with the state and against the various targets of the state. In short, they were never for freedom, only ever for leftism triumphant. I think we're seeing a preview of this in the enthusiastic destruction of Joe the Plumber.

Call Patri

Sad but true. Seasteading anyone? Dave

Uh ? Tons of libertarian

Uh ? Tons of libertarian content on digg.

We'll see

What libertarian content I've seen has tended to be libertarian content that advanced the left wing agenda. We'll see what happens once the whole government is Democratic. It may be that the leftists will go back to Huffpo and DailyKos. Maybe Digg has been Obama Central only for the election. Also, I don't have the time to wade through the "most recent" on Digg - I limit myself to a few pages of "top in 24 hours" or "top in 7 days". Maybe there's a steady stream of libertarian stuff that appears on the "recent" page but doesn't get dugg up to the front of "top in 24 hours".

Joe the Plumber?

[L]eftism triumphant. I think we're seeing a preview of this in the enthusiastic destruction of Joe the Plumber.

Huh? The Republicans trotted this guy out as a symbol of a "common man" who would be hurt by Obama's tax plan. It turns out, he is in fact a common man -- which is to say, like 95% of Americans, he'd be helped by Obama's tax plan.

The fact that Republicans continue to trumpet this guy even when the facts disprove their argument illustrates something about relative importance of symbolism and substance to the Republicans. But why would anyone expect left-wing sites to go along with this?

The unions don't threaten to bankrupt the nation.

Better union strong arm tactics than bank strong arm tactics.

Unions don't prevent banks

Unions don't prevent banks from bankrupting the nation so what's your point ? Rapist don't threaten to bankrupt the nation either, let's have rapes !

Maybe they do -- kinda

Unions don't prevent banks from bankrupting the nation so what's your point ?

I suspect the premise is that unions in fact DO prevent banks from bankrupting the nation -- in a sense. That is, the faults of Democrats (being beholden to union interests) are less pernicious than the faults of Republicans (being beholden to business interests). So when we choose Democrats over Republicans, we trade abuse by banks for abuse by unions.

Why choose ? With FDR you

Why choose ? With FDR you can get both !

Taxes, Spending, Regulation -- and Boogeymen

Ok, what exactly is the big libertarian boogeymen here?

Libertarians are supposed to get their knickers in a twist over making it easier to vote? Letting ex-felons vote? Letting citizens in DC vote? Oooo, scary.

Closing Guantanamo and military commissions and trying terrorists in civilian courts? Gracious!

Defending our property rights in the air and environment by regulating polluters? Say it ain’t so!

Giving people greater opportunity for the redress of grievances in court? Tolling the statute of limitations on suits until the aggrieved party has cause to know of the grievance? Deary me!

Changing No Child Left Behind? Damn.

Ending the Iraq war? Ah do declare, ah feel faint.

Imposing windfall profits taxes on oil companies? Why heavens, that might impair earning for certain stock holders, and distort the price signals so crucial to our pure-as-the-driven-snow market for energy that has never, ever been tampered with by, say, secret meeting with the Vice President resulting in an entire tax code full of subsidies. Those naughty, naughty liberals!

Renegotiate mortgage contracts in bankruptcy? Admittedly, this one’s trickier. This clearly represents government interfering with private property and contract rights, and conceptually the interested parties should be able to negotiate these outcomes on their own. After all, many lenders are already holding a number of foreclosed-upon properties and are not eager to depress the value of their holdings by foreclosing on more. Indeed, lenders might prefer to have people remain in their homes even if they're not paying their mortgage, in order to keep the pipes from freezing and keep out vandals and scrap-metal vultures. But because of the way we chop up and disburse the interest in mortgages these days, I understand that there can be pretty steep transaction barriers to getting all the interested parties together to negotiate a deal, even if it would be in everyone's self-interest. Libertarians are often sympathetic to the need for government intervention to overcome transaction barriers.

Raise taxes? No shit. Anyone would have to raise taxes; we’re $10 trillion debt and going deeper by the day! I was amused to hear Cong. Michelle “McCarthy” Bachmann objecting to the bail-out bill on the grounds that increasing the deficit would “hurt taxpayers.” Hell, Republicans always increase the deficit. Basically there hasn’t been any tax cut; there’s just been a tax DELAY. But the bill will come due now matter who is elected. Here the Democrats’ only sin is also the most unpardonable one: the sin of candor.

National health insurance? Don't we already have national health insurance – only funded in an incredibly inefficient way through compulsory emergency room services, etc? I understand the libertarian argument for keeping government entirely out of the health care system. But I don't understand the libertarian argument for the status quo or anything like it; that seems like the worst of all possible worlds. Basically unless we're gonna get government out entirely, we should at least govern in a manner to minimize the adverse selection costs.

Net Neutrality? Eh – dunno much about this, really. Government using its buying power to secure lower prices for drugs? I go back and forth on this one.

Union card check? Uh ... you know, I’m having a hard time with this one. Even George McGovern is opposed. So I’m gonna have to give you this one.

And I'll close with this: “A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.” Ah, yes, the Wall Street Journal editorial page at its finest. Did you spot the boogeyman?

Balanced Coverage for Joe Six Pack

And I'll close with this: “A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.” Ah, yes, the Wall Street Journal editorial page at its finest. Did you spot the boogeyman?

Do you deny that the Dems want to reestablish the "fairness doctrine" since their attempts to attract listeners to their shows like"Air America" failed.( Supposedly, as suggested by someone that Rush and similar programs are listened to by people driving to work,not people who get to sleep in every day)

Imposing windfall profits taxes on oil companies?

So you support legislative micromanagement of every perceived newsworthy "injustice"? That has been tried for years,Jimmy Carter, and you think that is superior to the market. I give up.
Dave

Defending our property

Defending our property rights in the air and environment by regulating polluters?

In this case regulation is a mockery of justice, it's merely an attempt at control, not a genuine reparation of the victims.

Imposing windfall profits taxes on oil companies? Why heavens, that might impair earning for certain stock holders, and distort the price signals so crucial to our pure-as-the-driven-snow market for energy that has never, ever been tampered with by, say, secret meeting with the Vice President resulting in an entire tax code full of subsidies. Those naughty, naughty liberals!

Price signals have nothing to do with it. Theft is theft and tax is theft. Tax breaks are theft breaks not gifts. Period, end of story, keep your hands in your own pocket.

National health insurance? Don't we already have national health insurance

Do we want to expand it ?

Net Neutrality?

Theft of routers, government's foot in Internet's door. Truly evil.

Hey maybe you forgot : increase capital gain taxes because taxes on the rich are an end in themselves ?

You all prefer higher taxes or higher inflation?

It has to be one or the other, doesn't it? Should we pay for the last 50 years now or should we shaft the grandkids?