A Bleeding Heart Libertarian Bill

During the Porcupine Tribune hiatus, I learned something about myself. It began with what I termed “Radical Indifference,” wherein I became so ambivalent to the wrong-headedness of all sides of debate that I
checked out entirely and angrily. After diving into a good amount of Hayek and the Anti-Federalists, some great conversations with thinkers such as Jessica Flannigan and Gary Chartier, and sufficient time away with my thoughts, I would like to suggest a new bill that is built around the reduction of invasive, leviathan government, the advancement of justice, and the sort of compromise William F. Buckley, Jr. Jr. discusses in his new love letter  to Woodrow Wilson (okay, that may be a mischaracterization of a great article).  A two-plank bill as sweeping, idealistic, and improbable as the “Green New Deal,” and even with similar aims, but without
calling for big government control and force.

Replace all federal entitlement programs with a universal basic income. Many across the conservative,
libertarian, and even anarchist spectrum more qualified than myself have been moving towards this idea from a variety of angles (see here and here for examples). This would address concerns across all ends of the political spectrum and establishes a more just system of addressing poverty. Among other merits, this would  1) eliminate the degrading and intrusive process of showing one’s underwear to the government, so to speak, in order to receive help, 2) prepare us for the coming decrease in low-skill jobs that will likely follow a more automated society, 3) drastically reduce the overall size and scope of government while offering more streamlined, efficient, and tangible help to those in need, and 4) create a system focused on investment in
the individual as opposed to the forced dependency in place now.

Replace federal income tax with revenue neutral carbon tax. The income tax is unjust. There is no compelling argument authorizing the forced taking of earned income from labor. Further, as taxation is increasingly (for better or for worse), used as a means to disincentivize specific behaviors (“sin taxes”) and to nudge other behaviors (the ACA individual mandate). If this is the accepted purpose of taxation, what, outside of revenue collection, can be inferred by the collection of income taxes? A more just and beneficial solution is replacing the income tax with a carbon tax. This would tax behavior that actually negatively impacts other individuals (you have a right to your property, but not to contaminate my air) instead of positive behavior (thereby allowing individuals to keep their earned money in their pockets). And, while my free market beliefs push me away from governmental nudges of this kind as a rule, it would attack cronyist regulations and encourage, instead, businesses to find tax savings through innovation such as 3D printing over transportation. This, along with deregulation, may also create a demand for other innovations such
self-driving uber fleets and even 3D printed meats.

Festivus: We're Back With an Axe to Grind

Dearest Reader,

As some of you may have noticed, while most of you have been blissfully ignorant, your favorite porcupine themed conservative blog has not posted in some time. Mortgages had to be paid, children had to be raised, and speaking for myself, there were fish in the streams and rivers around our nation’s capital that needed to be caught. This is not to say that John Dos Passos Dos and I don’t enjoy writing articles to lay out ‘the way we see it’ or, at times, to badger and ridicule one another through snarky and snide slights buried within an otherwise valid piece of opinion writing.

The goal of the PT was to bring a NeoCon and an anarchi…err…Libertarian together to lament about the lost soul of our beloved party by circumstance. As writers and editors we have lost sight of this.  In a temporary moment where I found myself both nostalgic and sentimental, and after one too many glasses of Blanton’s, I let John convince me that the PT was worth reviving.  That as writers and as men, we still had something to say.

Finding ourselves in a new year, just over a month out from December 23rd (better known as Festivus), I’m going to take a moment to channel my inner Frank Costanza and air my grievances:

1. The impeachment is neither important nor interesting.

   Our friends on the left thought they had Donald Trump with the Mueller investigation.  When the Mueller Report was released, it was a dud. Some things happened that were questionable, but all in all, nothing of substance to prosecute.  Instead of calling it a day and focusing on actually finding a candidate who could take on President Trump in 2020, the Dems doubled down. They brought forth impeachment hearings on some of the shakiest grounds imaginable (even by Swamp standards).

   
   This just solidifies that the Democratic Caucus is terribly outmatched when it comes to procedure. Sure they impeached the president, but what did they gain? In the weeks after the impeachment the reds got redder and the blues bluer. That just doesn’t win national elections. So realizing the dud they had on their hands, Nancy ‘The Clapper’ Pelosi decides that she is going to hold on to the articles of impeachment and delay their arrival to the upper chamber. Why? According to Pelosi, it’s because the Senate was unwilling to allow for witnesses.  In reality, it’s because she realized that Mitch McConnell is a master of procedural rules in the Senate and would scoot this whole matter along to a quick acquittal.

   
   After weeks of holding out Pelosi did what Democrats do best. She folded.  The House held a vote and the articles of impeachment have been delivered. The whole matter is a monumental waste of time. Trump will be acquitted. He will campaign on how the Dems did their best, but once again, no one can put Donny in a corner.

   
   To be clear, Trump is not a paragon of morality. We should not raise our children to use him as a compass for how to navigate life. His election and subsequent administration has been mired by controversy after controversy, many started by the man’s own twitter account. But what I’m getting at is that numerous presidents have committed impeachable offenses, their poll numbers were either high enough to avoid the matter or the lower chamber didn’t have the prerogative to initiate impeachment hearings.  The new Left’s beloved former leader Droney McPeaceprize (known by some as Barrack Obama) is among that list. Did he get congressional authorization for every use of force? Would his administration’s bumbling and obfuscation after the failed ATF plot ‘Fast and Furious’ not have qualified under the articles that Trump is being impeached? You may feel differently about the matter, but I see many similarities.

   
   My opinion is that we should just get rid of impeachments. It is an aspect of the constitution that has aged poorly. When written, term limits did not exist. Thanks to the public being sick of Franklin ‘Scoot After Any Skirt in the Room’ Roosevelt and his four terms as president, the congress ratified the 22nd amendment. Additionally, the impeachment proceedings are not about ‘protecting the Republic’ they are almost entirely politically motivated. Gerald Ford was at least being honest when, as leader of the House Republican Conference, he argued that high crimes and misdemeanors might as well be whatever a majority of the House of Representatives defined it to be, and would vote for.
   The whole process if flawed, the House of Representatives have proven to be ineffectual investigators ignoring or valuing certain evidence over others based on who is sitting in the Speaker’s chair. Let the people decide who serves as the head of state. And if we make a mistake…so be it.

2. Stop blaming the Bureaucracy. It all starts in Congress.

   Since the Carter administration, bureaucrats have become the de facto target of all “right wingers.” We say that are “lazy” or “unskilled.” Does the federal bureaucracy tend to vote for democrats? Yes. Do I blame them? No. When Woodrow ‘Just Make Me King Already’ Wilson was still a lowly academic at Bryn Mawr College, he wrote an essay, “The Study of Administration” wherein he laid out what would become a foundational treatise of what has become the field of public administration. He posited that the political administration and the bureaucratic administration should be wholly separated so as to ensure that the bureaucracy and uphold the fleeting political sentiments. To some, this is ‘classic King Wilson’, but he wasn’t advocating for the replacement of a citizen centric/rule by the governed system (at least not at that point). He believed that the bureaucracy needed to be manned by highly specialized individuals and function as a professional cadre with no allegiance to politics. Unfortunately both for the country and the bureaucracy, Wilson did not continue to hold these sentiments when he took office. He re-segregated the civil service and did everything in his power to bend government to his will.

   
   For my entire professional career I have worked in, with, and around the bureaucracy at every level of government. Many times drawing a salary funded by you, dear reader, as Joe Taxpayer. From early in my childhood I felt what, as a practicing and devout Catholic, I can only describe as a calling to an avocation which served the people and not simply the bottom line. In my time in the bureaucracy I can attest that parts of Wilson’s dream is still alive and well, I have had the pleasure of working with some incredibly hard working, intelligent (sometimes even brilliant), and wholly committed bureaucrats who care about their role and the work they produce and the people they impact.
   I will concede that the bureaucracy is too large and does need to be reigned in. But the culprit is not the bureaucracy itself or the bureaucrats manning their posts. The real target of our frustration is our own elected officials in Congress.  As we all know, it is Congress that wields the power of the purse. Every added agency, program, and hire is a direct result of a policy which has been passed by those chosen to represent the people. If there is one aspect of the current administration that I find myself continually impressed by, it is the willingness to trim some of the most burdensome regulations imposed by the previous administration, and more importantly oppose new regulations. This is one promise President Trump has delivered upon.

   
   In a June 2019 interim report, released by the Council of Economic Advisors, noted that the Trump administration has undertaken twenty federal deregulatory actions which would save American consumers and businesses a whopping $220 billion per year once they go into full effect. This action would raise real incomes by 1.3%.

   
   The issue is that it has become all too easy to blame the faceless bureaucracy, the men and women in the gray flannel suits who clock in every morning and fulfill the statutory requirements of the laws passed by our legislature. What many fail to come to terms with is that as conservatives we tend to write off demographics as “unwinnable”. Inner-city? Unwinnable. Youth vote? Unwinnable. Government employees? Unwinnable.  We need to not only extend the olive branch (not stopping the constant attack) and start recruiting, and dare I say it, forcibly taking over. We should encourage our youth to serve our nation’s civil service. The best and brightest can serve their nation by taking their principled approach to government and holding a seat at the table when it comes to designing the application and administration of the policy.

3. A New Party of Ideas…Maybe Even a Compromise

   I have never understood the self-righteousness and pride of our elected officials for their record of voting ‘no’. There are entire congressional careers which have been filled with the ‘no’ vote with very few original ideas coming out of their respective office. We must stop deifying the hard liners and recognize that their stances will net few returns for our causes. Numerous members who share our distaste for a government run healthcare system have voted ‘no’ (as they should have, it is a very bad idea), but the GOP’s answer/alternative has been lacking. We can’t hope to win the hearts and minds of the coveted middle 50% of America without bringing something of value to the table. The party that fails to innovate has little hope of surviving. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather the GOP didn’t go the way of the Whigs.

   
   I see only one alternative to rectify our current course. Our legislature must actually do its job the way the founders intended. There is a reason why the House and Senate are set up in Article I; they are the big show. They were supposed to be the bold who guided our nation through well thought out policy which was poignant for the times (a representative only has two years to get things done before facing reelection) and responsible (a senator enjoys six years of comfort before being made to account for their sins…er…actions). Our elected representatives must, in no uncertain terms, craft policy. Not just any policy, but passable policy that can make it through committee and onto the floor. Then they must put in the same effort to build consensus not only within the GOP, but across the aisle. If we stop being the party of opposition, we can be the party of inspiration. That is the goal, the gold standard, and the epitome of what it means to be a public servant.

Fed's Dead Baby, Fed's Dead

In the age of the Marvel Cinematic Universe an all too common archetype is the unknown or overlooked hero emerging at the most fortuitous time to take on the villain and restore order and justice to the land.  Steve Rogers went from an altruistic and patriotic sideshow attraction to Captain America, Bruce Banner went from mild mannered introvert to the Incredible Hulk, and (one of my personal favorites) Peter Parker went from lonely outsider to the Amazing Spider Man.

What would this trope look like in the real world?  More specifically, what would it look like deep within the bowels of the Rayburn House Office Building?

That hero would have an unwavering conviction to the constitution.  The hero would fight tirelessly against the self-serving status quo to promote individual liberties and ensure government transparency.  That hero is a congressman from Kentucky and his name is Thomas Massie.

On January 3rd, Representative Massie introduced H.R.24 – Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019 which, if passed, would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks.

For the long-time fed skeptics and the ardent Massie followers, this bill should seem very familiar.  Massie introduced similar bills in 2017 and 2015, Paul Broun introduced a similar bill in 2014, and the perennial liberty crusader Ron Paul introduced a similar bill in 2009.

The Federal Reserve System has long been a thorn in the side of free market evangelists.  Its fingerprints can be found on the Great Depression, the Great Inflation of 1966-1981, and the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.  These disasters are not unique to our central bank, but to central banking in general.  In 2011, the European Central Bank played a role in the Eurozone’s double-dip recession through a series of quarter point adjustments to the target interest rate.

As you read this, you may be asking yourself “Why isn’t this covered in the news and the center of a public debate?” or “Why haven’t our elected officials done anything about this?”

The answer is that as a country, we are not well educated about the role the Fed plays in developing our monetary policy, the powers it holds, or the impact it has on our day to day lives.  Our elected officials also have little recourse to reel in the Fed’s powers because Fed operations are not transparent.  In its over 100-year history it has never been fully audited by an outside source and continually resists any kind of congressional oversight.  Congress may have birthed the beast, but it has little role in monitoring or regulating it under the pretense of it being independent of politics.

In short, the Fed has entirely too much power to be left unaccountable.  The central bank independently controls and determines the money supply and it has the ability to create money without restriction.  This translates to the fate of our monetary policy being left up to seven unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats serving on the Board of Governors.

By developing our monetary policy, the Fed controls the aggregate demand, i.e. the total amount of spending in the economy.  It’s able to manipulate the aggregate demand by making adjustments to the money supply and the short-term interest rates.  In effect, the Fed plays a massive role in affecting the inflation in our economy.

These practices have led to what Dan Sanchez from the Foundation for Economic Freedom has described as the Federal Reserve’s shell game.  It is able to take on a monetary expansion policy which it uses its ability to produce FIAT money to inflate the money supply.  Alternatively, if the US government seeks to borrow from a private bank, the US Treasury creates a treasury bond note (an Uncle Sam IOU) which gives the bond holder the ability to recoup the principal plus interest.  The Fed, looking for government debt, purchases the treasury bond from the private lender (in which the private lender makes a profit).  The federal government now owes itself money and is paying itself interest.  As Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff puts it:

“The Treasury pays interest and principal to the Fed on the bonds, but the Fed hands that interest and principal back to the Treasury as profits earned by a government corporation, namely the Fed.”

While this arrangement may seem ideal (the government gets the funds required to purchase what it needs, a private lender makes a profit, and the government just ends up paying the interest back to itself), in actuality its causing inflation and growing the size of government.  The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains that as these false booms are occurring, caused by the increased money supply, misleading signals are being sent to producers.  Because interest rates are low and available money is plenty, they increase production, not necessarily tied to demand.  This increased production is a malinvestment, i.e. a poor allocation of resources.

These examples and their negative affects on our economy, and ultimately us as citizens, are precisely why a bill like H.R.24 is so necessary.  It provides the crucial first step in making the Federal Reserve System more transparent and accountable to the citizens of the United States.  I applaud Representative Massie and the twenty-five men and women co-sponsoring this bill.

In a future article I will discuss policy prescriptions, both radical and pragmatic, to adjust and reform the Federal Reserve System.

- William F. Buckley Jr. Jr.

Likeability is Not About Gender

On Thursday, while a video (released Wednesday by an apparently extraordinarily misguided QAnon-affiliated Twitter account) of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing as a high schooler reenacting the famous dance scene from The Breakfast Club went viral, a slew of articles (here, here, here, and here, but there are many more) arrived with more or less the same thesis: the concept of “likability” is sexist and that the term “unlikable” is reserved for competent and qualified female candidates, rarely applied to their male counterparts, largely written in response to Politico article from Monday discussing Elizabeth Warren’s ability to overcome “likability” concerns (here).

It is true that “likability” should not be a major consideration in determining whether a candidate should be President of the United States; Article II of the Constitution says nothing about “likability” (frankly, much of the modern presidential role is absent from Article II as well, but that’s a different discussion). But elections are decided by the more activated base and/or the swing votes. Is the party loyalist who doesn’t always vote going to be more likely to be energized by charisma or by a bore? Will the not very political, undecided voter who votes with the gut be swayed by the drone or the inspired? Should is nice, but my should president is Silent Cal, and the man would be unelectable today.

The results of this can be seen when looking at almost any modern presidential election, going back at least to Richard Nixon sweating next to the charismatic, handsome, and youthful John F. Kennedy in the 1960 Presidential Debate. Consider Bubba playing sax on The Arsenio Hall Show vs. the older, prudent Bush 41. Consider Dubya, the man everyone wanted to drink a beer with, who met Laura in a backyard barbecue and, love at first site, married her three months later vs. the robot or the smug guy who married into a ketchup fortune. How about the young and effortlessly cool, gifted orator and community organizer from humble beginnings?

At the risk of writing what could be construed as a puff piece about a politician whose politics I absolutely abhor, here are some subjective statements that are about as inarguable as opinion can be: the aforementioned viral video of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is absolutely endearing. Beyond the video, she is charismatic and charming. She is relatable, with her down-to-Earth, mixed bag childhood and adolescence, her leaked bartending pictures, and her finger-on-the-Millennial-pulse tweets. She has moxie. She is, in a word, likeable.

 Another subjective, but inarguable statement: Hillary Clinton could not be more different. Her speeches are tortuous. The various affectations she accrues to pander to this crowd or that reek of inauthenticity. She can’t seem to help coming off as condescending and arrogant, even to her supporters. Her entire demeanor is that of someone who feels entitled to the Presidency and is expecting coronation. Of course, Hillary and Trump were both historically disliked, but as concisely as can be stated, Hillary was disliked in the wrong places and that is why she lost (the most accurate assessment of why she lost was actually written before she lost by, of all people Michael Moore. There is much to take issue with in the assessment, but it is certainly more accurate of an assessment than anything in Clinton’s full book of excuses, which is incidentally the type of book an unlikable person writes).

It is unfortunate that the first major female candidate for president was someone as utterly unlikeable as Hillary Clinton. But while “likability” is unlikely to be a good metric by which to judge a presidency, it is certainly a good metric, if a bit intangible, for predicting the winner of a presidential election. And this is why “likability” is worth talking about.

The Elizabeth Warren defenders behind the barrage of “likability is sexist” articles would have perhaps made better use of their time making the case for Warren’s likability, rather than jumping to bias accusations. Warren is certainly more likeable than Clinton (a low bar, but she clears it easily), though she isn’t AOC-level likable. Warren’s main problems are her disastrous genetic test reveal, her “Pocahontas” nickname (easily the best Trump has devised), and her extremely radical left-wing policy stances. But as far as likability goes, she has a backstory (if she can get away from the Native American stuff), can give a decent speech, and comes across as an actual human person. In the words of Obama in 2008, she’s “likeable enough”.

- John Dos Passos Dos