Going further

When Bob Schieffer interviewed Romney and Ryan, he wanted to nail them on rich bastards paying lower tax rates than middle class tax rates. Of course, by now, we know the difference between capital gains taxes and income taxes, and hopefully the average concerned citizen has learned that most rich bastards are taxed on their wealth several times before all is said and done -- when it's their income, when it's their capital gains through investment in the company, and then when individuals die and give to their children and they are hit really hard. Only an old biased dinosaur like Schieffer can ask such questions without showing a sign of mendacity.

But, if we want to make taxes fair, then let's make them fair. The problem is that no one wants to give up their tax breaks. The middle class is afraid that if we go to a fair tax, their exemptions might be removed. In order to resolve the tax problem we all have to agree what is fair. Right now, it's a joke to continue yelling at the rich to pay their fair share -- the top 1% pay 40% of taxes. Democrats love to pick a case or two of rich bastards evading taxes, but we won't learn much by looking at individual cases. We have to analyze the complete tax system. I've said for years that the party which desires to carry the limited government mantle should first start with the elimination of all corporate welfare, including farming welfare to large agricultural corporations, and defense contractors who are sucking off the giant teat of the military/industrial complex. Once we cut that waste, fraud and abuse, then we can get down to business establishing a fair tax code to pay for a whittled-down government. Then we can begin transitioning safety net/healthcare/retirement to the private sector, along with education. Then we can reduce taxes even more, leaving more money in the private sector for Americans to work out their own problems, rather than increasing their dependence on a declining government power structure headed for collapse.

Corporations begging Big Daddy Fed for help

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/bernanke-fed-will-act-if-there-risk

It's a shame that Big Business in America has become a group of government dependents waiting on political pressure so that the Fed will feed their addiction. These companies would likely fall apart under intense competition from hungry small businesses, but, thanks to government and  a President that has caused small business activty to seize up in uncertainty because of all the government interventions, the State-Corporations are protected. If the rest of the world wasn't in worse condition than the US these State-Corporations couldn't make it in the global market, which is keeping them going right now, along with Fed help.

The state of American enterprise is sad, and although these large corporations are sitting on large amounts of cash, once other nations understand what they must do to compete and sustain economic growth, or once we get a President and Congress which end all corporate welfare, these lazy, soft dependents will be eaten alive.

Republicans join Democrats to advance corporate welfare

The GOP is making it more difficult to see them as an opposition party. A faction of the GOP is attempting to offer opposition and a new vision, but the old GOP that joins Democrats to further statist policies is still at work. The Tea Party and independents will have to clean house on the Right and the Left until all statists are removed from congress and the White House. That's a tall order with the infestation as bad as it is.

Libertarianism missing an opportunity

Ron Paul has faded into the background. Cato writers and managers have said their purpose is not activism. The Libertarian Party is stale with no innovative attempts to generate radical change and rally people to action. The Tea Party talks about conservatism, but not libertarianism. All those on the Right who first claimed affinity with libertarian/free market/limited government ideas are now capitulating to criticisms that libertarians don't care and are only concerned with protecting the bank accounts of rich, white, capitalist pigs, or, they, libertarians, support gay marriage and legalization of drugs, so there can be no association with such libertine extremists.

Among self-described libertarians, after media associated libertarians with rightwing extremists, many have called themselves liberaltarians or Left-libertarians or some have simply said they are liberals after all, just not totally liberal. As a matter of fact, they claim labels suck, so they just go the pragmatic route, which looks a lot like the modern liberal route. They won't say they support Obama, but they certainly don't support Romney, and the Libertarian Party is nothing, so...besides, Obama has turned out to be a Centrist, and that's not so bad.

There are no libertarian leaders, except perhaps Ron Paul, but Paul is not a radical -- America's situation calls for radical action, but radical change is seen as madness by the political class. The fact is that there are very few real libertarians left who are of the classical liberal/free market/limited government/non-interventionist variety. There's a lot of rhetoric about economic liberty and lessening the role of government in our lives, but there are few libertarians who will fight for radical change, and that's what it will take to make any significant changes to our statist system. 

Being a libertarian means standing against the status quo, the political class, the establishments of both parties, the State machine, the media, most major universities, Hollywood, military/industrial complex hawks, bigots, statists on the Right and Left. Libertarians are attacked from all sides and misrepresented on a regular basis -- or completely ignored. There's no quick rewards being a libertarian because there's no hope of political influence in the foreseeable future. Libertarians are outcasts. Yet, libertarians are closer to the spirit and intellectual foundation of America as it was founded than modern liberals or conservatives. I quess we can say the country has moved on from that intellectual foundation and spirit, taking the Hamiltonian route, and now the State has grown to represent the hope of the future, the modern Way to justice, equality and security, rather than free people working together and competing sans government meddling. The idea of a minimal government that protects basic rights so that commerce can take place without fear of coercion is not considered viable anymore in America.

We've tried the mixed economy but the State continues to encroach and gain more control over the economy. As we find out, the more control over the economy that the State takes for itself, more general control is necessary. Dissent must be marginalized, and, to do this, privacy must be violated. Property rights must become of less or no import in a Statist system. Conformity becomes necessary as small enterprises which innovate upset the status quo and prevent well ordered economic management. A Statist system doesn't like surprises or spontaneous change. Statists must allow only the activity that fits within the overall plans and furthers the goals of the State. Innovation and creativity are discouraged, and if innovation and creativity are persistent, then they'll be blocked by regulation and law. All deviations from the plans are viewed as attempts by individuals to selfishly go their own ways and gain financially at the expense of others. In the Statist system there will be the managers and the managed, but since the new managers are State managers, they'll manage with compassion and fairness, so that justice is maintained and equality constantly sought.

The reason libertarians are not a political force is because libertarians don't seek political power -- libertarians seek to tear down political power and release the power of individuals in a free market. Any serious group of libertarians who actually organize to bring down the Statist power structures would be classified as enemies of the State, so it makes it even harder for libertarians to organize, because the thought of challenging the State and becoming an enemy of the State is daunting -- the intimidation factor is powerful and effective. When all meaningful power is within the State structure, then special interest groups are formed to seek benefit and favor from the State managers. Self-sufficient individuals keep their heads down and simply do their own things within the rules without causing waves. Not many people are cut out to become revolutionaries, and, besides, doesn't the State provide security? Why should the people tear down the structures of power when this power is needed in an uncertain, scary world? Isn't it best to trust that the managers of power will not abuse power? Yes, managers of power will always enrich themselves, but as long as they are helping the populace in need, why should anyone risk retaliation by the State and become marked as an enemy of the State, a rabble-rouser, a threat to security and order?

Can't we simply work through the political system and vote in representatives who will prevent power from being abused? I suppose it's possible, but the problem is that too many Americans are taking too much from the system and not producing enough to sustain a large nation, and once the dependents reach a greater percentage than can be supported, the nation begins collapsing. Even the managers of power cannot prevent reality from having its say. Ask the managers of power in Greece. It doesn't matter why dependents are created -- it could be that productivity is such that not as many people are needed in the labor market -- it can be government regulations cause an economy to become stagnant -- it can be because most people will not work if they can find a way to live without working, especially if their basic needs are met without a fulltime job, and they can work under the table when needed to supplement government welfare. It might be politically unpopular to discuss the motives of welfare recipients, but reality doesn't care about political correctness. For whatever reasons, if dependents increase and producers of wealth decrease, then nations move toward collapse. Middle class and corporate welfare are even greater destroyers of wealth when what is taken is greater than what's produced.

When nations begin to collapse, they turn on the dependents. Statists need dependents in the beginning to gain power, but when dependents begin to threaten the power structure, power managers lose their compassion -- positions are threatened and dependents are forced to earn their keep, even if it means the State will build roads and dig ditches, anything to stop the bleeding and mounting debt. But dependents will not go from no work to hard work without resistance. When middle class benfits are threatened, the middle class will push back and politicians will have to decide between economic reality and political survival. When protected corporations are threatened and then bled of cash to support the Statist system, they will try to find another way, some other political power to protect them. The various groups of dependents might even form other political parties that promise to keep the welfare state intact. There will be vicious political battles, with everyone fighting over dwindling resources. At this point, like Rome and Britain and other failed empires, the game is over and it's just a matter of time before the falling apart is complete.

But that's all nonsense, right? That can't happen in America. Libertarians are extremists and their paranoia is such a downer. No, it appears that libertarians had a minute of attention and now they're relegated back to obscurity on the fringe. Just read the above! Who wants to listen to that? How long does a collapse take? It could be another fifty years. Why worry now?

Is income disparity really a problem?

There are two problems as I see it related to the current focus on income disparity. Disparity per se is not a problem, but income disparity created by a rigged game is a problem. To solve income disparity created by corporate welfare and government protection, we need only end all corporate welfare, loop holes and regulatory advantages -- in other words, we need a free market in which government doesn't intervene to pick winners and losers. Once we have a free market, a person making 3 million or 300 million a year is of no concern to anyone else, because this person doesn't take anything away from anyone else -- the person creates new wealth and makes the pie bigger.

Yes, there are those who inherit money, but that doesn't hold anyone back in a free market. If we transitioned from the welfare state to private assistance organizations, fund-raisers could ask those who are fortunate enough to be born in the right family to donate some of that wealth to help the unfortunate, but voluntary donations, not confiscation of wealth. In a free market most people will not even try to become multi-millionaires, because it's not what drives most people. There are some who possess the drive and ambition to create huge enterprises, to accumulate wealth and produce, and that's good -- we need these people who put it all on the line and risk everything. If ambitious people take risks and succeed then they deserve the wealth they create -- it creates jobs for those with less ambition who only want a fair chance to decent life. These producers contibute to society through what they create.

If we as a society start destroying wealth producers just because they become wealthy, we'll destroy ourselves in the process. Yes, make the market fair so that there's equal opportunity and no government protection for large corporations, but then leave it alone and allow wealth to grow.