Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

September 22, 2009

More Evidence of Global Warming?

I couldn't pass this one up:

Melting Ice Caps Expose Hundres of Secret Arctic Lairs. Enjoy.

Fortunately, my own lair is in the Antarctic, so I have a bit more time to push for a carbon tax.

Posted by CarlMilsted at 10:21 AM | Comments (0)

September 21, 2009

Act Now (by CoB Monday) to Support Energy!

If you care about making sure we're not dependent on foreign countries for our energy – and that we don’t continue to hamstring our economy, jobs and revenue stream – American Solutions has a very timely call to action that will take you less than 1 minute. But you need to act now. The deadline for comments is tomorrow.

The Department of Interior, which decides when and where we drill for oil and gas, has been holding a "notice and comment" period. This is when they solicit input from the public as to whether we should drill or not.

This is one way that the anti-energy interest groups have been able to successfully block any common sense development for decades.

The deadline for submissions is Monday, and we need your help to overwhelm the Interior Department with comments in favor of drilling.

Please take 1 minute to submit your comments right now at YourEnergyOpinion.com.

If you don't have time to write anything, don't worry. We've already taken care of it for you. Just fill in the personal information section, and click “submit.” But feel free to modify the message, or add your own comments at the end. (My standard text and personal comments are pasted in below.)

Once you submit your comment, please forward YourEnergyOpinion.com to anyone else that you think would be willing to help out.

This is an opportunity that we must seize.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:12 AM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2009

Begging the Question

The New York Times thought fit to print this essay by economist Robert H. Frank entitled "Flaw in Free Markets: Humans." To some extent, Free Liberals might respond "And...?" Depending on one's definition, of course markets and the people who make them up are not "perfect." Frank has set us up for failure with a colossally one-dimensional straw man.

The honest observer might do a follow-on essay "Flaw in Government: Humans." We could read them both and recognize that we've a long way to go before stumbling on the truth, because, quite self-evidently, neither essay would be in spitting distance of actual truth.

So, we soldier on....

-RC

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 06:47 AM | Comments (1)

September 11, 2009

Using Unions to Destroy FedEx (and hurt the US economy)

The problem with government regulating every facet of the US economy is that invariably, politicians are swayed by the electoral or campaign-donation-making power of the various interests at play, not the merits of the arguments on either side. This scenario is currently being played out in a struggle between shipping giants FedEx and UPS.

George Will had an excellent piece about the situation several weeks ago. Basically, UPS wants to hamstring its main competitor FedEx by forcing it to adhere to stricter labor laws that give more power to the labor unions. This despite the fact that in the early 1990s, Fedex actually attempted to convince Congress to give UPS the ability to operate under the same rules under which FedEx operates.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has already passed the "bailout" of Big Brown. It is up to the Senate to stop this unwise and unnecessary legislation. In fact, rather than forcing more labor regulations on UPS, Congress would be providing the US economy a real stimulus if it reduced the ability of labor unions to tie up not only these, but other businesses attempting to get by in today's economy.

Oh, and while we're on the issue of shipping companies, as my friend Paul Jacob writes, now is the time to privatize the US Post Office as well!

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:29 PM | Comments (0)

September 09, 2009

Alternate History 1976 - What if Ford had won Ohio?

How would America have been different if Ford had won Ohio (and the presidency) in 1976? It's actually a pretty interesting question and there are enough folks around who would have been on his staff to get serious answers. I will throw out some leading questions under the fold and make my guesses and let respondents come to their own conclusions (and post them).

Would Ford have appointed Paul Volker as Fed Chair, who raised interest rates and stalled the economy in order to stop inflation? Would he have used the power of the office to have whoever was at the Fed to react differently? Someone has to know.

I have no doubt that the Shah would have fallen anyway, however things might have been different with Dick Cheney as Chief of Staff and Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State. The hostages might still have been taken, but the response would have undoubtedly been different.

Would Carter have won the nomination in 1980 against Ted Kennedy? The party establishment would likely have treated Kennedy a bit differently than if he had been running against a sitting President. I think he would have won the nomination and likely the election as well, given that the likely GOP nominee would have been Bob Dole.

Next comes the tricky question, which may be in bad taste, but I will ask it anyway. Would he have survived John Hinkley's attempt to kill the President? Would he have had tighter security that day, entering through a basement? If not, would he been healthy enough to survive the shot Reagan took? If not, who would he have selected for Vice President (someone has to know) and would that person have won in 1984? If Kennedy had avoided a Hinkley attempt or survived it, would he have served two terms? Would he have gotten health care passed in 1981, or would it have passed in his memory then (instead of now).

Would Reagan have won a first election in 1984? (I seriously doubt it - being elected at 73 is much different than at 69). Could George H.W. Bush have beaten Kennedy or his VP that year? Would he have ever been President without being VP first? (Again, I doubt it.) What about Howard Baker? In 1984, what Republican governor could have beaten Reagan? Would Jack Kemp have been Dole's running mate in 1980 without Kemp-Roth and his service as HUD Secretary? I doubt it. The GOP would have been different. I doubt that under anyone else the Reagan tax cuts would have been passed, or even proposed without Reagan. Some cut would have been likely and tax simplification would likely have happened with lower rates, but they would have been revenue neutral to the pre-1981 cuts. My guess is that in 1984 or 1988, Howard Baker would have been President and held office until 1993, or even 1997.

Was Bill Clinton inevitable? (I think so). If Kennedy had been toppled in 84, would he have run in 88 or would Dukakis have still won the nomination? Would Mondale have ever run without being Carter's VP? What about Al Gore? Would he have been Kennedy's VP and would he have held in 84 if Kennedy did not survive John Hinkley? If Kennedy had passed health care reform, would the Republican counter revolution of 1994 have happened? (I doubt it). If Gore were Kennedy's VP, would he have won in his own right? Again, I don't think so. Baker would have beaten him. If he had been President or Vice President, he would not have been Clinton's VP. I wonder who would have been? We could ask Bill, since he would know.

What about after Clinton? Without Bush I, Bush II would never have been Governor of Texas, Karl Rove would not be the boy genius of the GOP and John McCain would have been President in 2000. 9-11 still would have happened, but Iraq would not have. Would John McCain have done two terms, or would the Presidency have killed him by 2004? We can always ask him who is VP would have been in 2000. If he had survived, would that VP have won in 2008? If not, would the VP have won in 2004? Would McCain have run the White House like he ran the campaign in 2008?

Obama would not have been ready for the Presidency in 2004, but would Kerry have been the go-to-guy who could have beaten him? If Kerry had won, would he have won a second term in 2008? My guess is that if McCain had won a second term, Obama would be President now. If Kerry had beaten McCain in 2004, he might have been reelected and would be President today - although given his performance, or lack thereof, against the swift boaters, he might have bungled it. If he had, would Romney have won the nomination in 2008 and the Presidency? (I can't see that either, since he would not have won the south in the primaries, no matter what). My guess is that Huckabee might have won the nomination if not for John McCain. He might have even beaten Kerry and we would be talking about the Fair Tax now instead of Health Care Reform, although he would likely have gotten, and settled for a VAT with a high floor income tax on the wealthy - although none of the Presidents in my scenario would have cut taxes like either Reagan or Bush II. Could Huck get re-elected? Probably not, since voters react to consumption taxes in a negative way, so Obama would win in 2012, since Hillary would have been badly advised by Terry MacAuliffe and would have still avoided the caucusses. Would he select Biden in 2012 if running for the first time? Probably not. If McCain had been President in 2000, immigration reform, with amnesty, would have happened then and all those people on a path to citizenship would have it by 2016, leading Obama to pick Richardson as VP to gain their favor.

Feel free to comment with your own scenarios. To summarize mine: Ford/Dole wins in 76. Kennedy/Gore in 1980. Baker/Bush in 1984 and 1988 (as a backlash against health care reform and with no tax cut). Clinton/whomever in 1992 and 1996. McCain/whomever in 2000. Kerry/Edwards in 2004. Huckabee/Pawlenty in 2008. Obama/Richardson 2012 (beating Huck) and after that, I won't speculate except to say that 2016 would be Obama v. Pawlenty (which may happen in 2012 unless Romney gets a southern strategy for the primaries).

Posted by MichaelBindner at 08:58 AM | Comments (1)

September 05, 2009

ObamaCare and America's Current Entitlement Problem

Too often when describing the size and scope of the United States government, we use massive numbers that are not relevant to regular people in their daily lives. The Center for Individual Freedom has produced an excellent video (below) to illustrate the problem and how government-run medical reforms now moving through Congress would affect average families.

Posted by PaulGessing at 02:44 PM | Comments (3)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED

Advertisement