The Freedom Bulletin

I just watched the State of the Union Address. My verdict? Well, I have to admit, the first half was pretty good. President Obama actually seemed moderate and reasonable. I like his idea to reward companies that hire new workers or raise wages and to eliminate the capital gains tax on small businesses.

But the second half of his speech…not so great in my opinion. One thing that I strongly disagree with is Obama’s idea to double the child tax credit. Child tax credits are unfair and discriminatory. Why give tax breaks only to people who have children? It would be a lot simpler and fairer to just reduce the federal income tax, since that would help everyone, both people who have children and people who don’t.

Although he started off with a strong emphasis on jobs and the economy, I knew that Obama would eventually mention health reform. I have written a lot about health insurance on this blog, so you probably know that I’m no fan of Obama’s reform plan. He spoke a lot tonight about the rights of people who can’t afford insurance or are denied it because of pre-existing conditions, but I wish he would pay more attention to individuals’ rights to decide how they want to spend their own money, a right that would be violated by the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which is part of the “reform” plan that Obama supports.

And while Obama’s idea of a three-year freeze on the federal budget sounds like a step in the right direction, it cracked me up when he said something to the effect of, “spending on national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.” Those four things are most of the federal budget!

On a side note, Biden’s facial expressions were too funny, nodding solemnly at everything Obama said. It was hilarious when he broke into a huge grin and started laughing. I also loved how all the Republicans laughed when Obama said that the budget freeze won’t go into affect until next year because of the recession (“that’s how budgeting works!”).

Obama invited anyone who has a better health reform idea to share it with him. I have one, which I have mentioned before in bits and pieces but have never explained all together in one essay. Soon I will do just that. Maybe I’ll even send it to Obama, too!

I just wanted to share with everyone that I had a letter to the editor published in the Boston Globe yesterday, about the MA Senate election. Check it out: “Imagine how non-Democrats have felt all these years.”

As you probably know, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to loosen limits on political spending by corporations. Corporations, unions, and other organizations are now allowed to runs ads explicitly supporting candidates at any time they want to during campaigns.

This ruling makes sense – why shouldn’t corporations and non-profits be allowed to explicitly support candidates if they are already allowed to run ads un-explicitly supporting candidates? But after a little thinking, I believe that the whole system of campaigns being financed by private donations is far from ideal.

Here’s an idea that I came up with – it might be radical and other libertarians might not like it, but here goes. What if campaigns weren’t financed by donations at all? Suppose that people and organizations weren’t allowed to donate to campaigns. Instead, TV channels and radio stations could be required to allocate a certain number of ad slots, for free, to each candidate in elections.

Some people might find it unappealing for the government to be able to tell TV channels and radio stations what to do. But now, we have a system in which political influence and ability to win elections depend on money. Campaign finance is collectively self-defeating, like a nuclear arms race. Say, for example, that I donate $100 to candidate A, and you donate $100 to candidate B. Seeing that the candidates are now tied again, I give $100 more to A. Then you give $100 more to B to tie up the race again. This could keep going on until we’ve each given $1 million to our preferred candidate, and the outcome – the candidates being tied – would be the same as if we’d given nothing. Doesn’t seem like that was a waste of money? Wouldn’t it be better if we could keep our money for ourselves without having to feel like we are letting the candidate we don’t like win?

Not only does the current campaign finance system limit politics to the well-off, it’s just wrong for anyone – rich or poor – to have to pay money to run for office. The ability to share your views with the world shouldn’t be a commodity, and a candidate’s likelihood of winning shouldn’t depend on the amount of money they and their followers are willing to sacrifice. It’s such a waste for losing candidates who spend millions of dollars on nothing, and even for winning candidates whose victory comes at a huge financial cost.

Another perk of my system: it would greatly help third-party and independent candidates, since TV and radio would have to give the same amount of ad time to all candidates.

Further reading:

• CNN: Supreme Court eases restrictoins on corporate campaign spending
• Economy Watch: US Supreme Court: No to Campaign Finance Limits

I saw this article in the Boston Globe magazine today about Boston’s modern architecture – such as City Hall, the JFK Federal Building, and the sprawling State Service Center. I love these buildings and have never understood why so many people, including Mayor Thomas Menino, think they are ugly. It seems many people agree with me. I like brutalist buildings because they stand out and give visual interest to the city – it would be boring for Boston to be filled with just old-fashioned brick buildings. City Hall Plaza is one of my favorite places in the world. It is dramatic and breathtaking in a way that no park or traditional brick building can match.

Here are some of my favorite pictures that I have taken of Boston’s modern buildings:

JFK Fedreal Building

Boston City Hall

Christian Science Plaza tower

State Service Center

Since Scott Brown’s victory on Tuesday, many people - such as Anna North at Jezebel.com, James Carroll at the Daily Beast, Monica Hesse at the Washington Post, and Jeanne Cummings and Erika Lovely at Politico – have said that basically, Martha Coakley lost because voters are sexist.

I disagree. I have never heard or read of anyone saying that they voted for Brown because he is a man. There’s just no evidence to support these claims.

Additionally, this article claims that it was sexist of Brown’s supporters to “cheer on the notion of Coakley being raped.” While it is certainly horrible to wish rape on someone, it isn’t sexist, exactly. Men can be raped, just as women can. Coakley’s supporters could just as easily have cheered about Brown being raped, and it would have been just as classless. It’s sexist to say that wishing rape on someone is sexist, since that claim seems to be based on the assumption that only women can be raped. Real feminists believe that men and women are equal and should be treated that way. Both men and women can be the victims or the perpetrators of rape, and it’s unacceptable to wish rape on anyone of any gender.

Plus, there has been letter after letter in the Boston Globe this week saying that the people elected Brown because of “stupidity,” “foolishness,” “personality, misinformation, and fear.” One person goes as far as to write, “although Scott Brown won the election, there is a large chunk of Bay Staters he doesn’t seem to represent.”

Well, duh! That would be the same chunk of Bay Staters that is currently represented by the other 11 of our 12 representatives in Congress. How do you think we non-Democrats have felt for the past few decades that we have gone with no representation in Congress? Right now, 52% of the people are represented by one person, and 47% are represented by 11 people. When it gets to be 6 and 6, then the Democrats can start complaining.

Why can’t people accept that maybe Brown won the election because people like his views better and think he’ll do a better job? Why can’t they accept that people might be fed up with one-party control of our state and the country, or opposed to the health bill that was created through bribery and forces everyone to buy health insurance? Why must people attribute Brown’s victory to sexism, ignorance, and fear? Maybe Brown won because he deserved to.

I am happy that Scott Brown won. Not as happy as if Joe Kennedy won, but that unfortunately had no chance of happening.

But I am not as happy as I should be that Massachusetts has a Republican representative in Congress for the first time in an eternity. This election was marred for me by the hostility between supporters of Brown and Kennedy. Hostility between Brown and Coakley supporters, fine. That makes sense. But Republicans and Libertarians, although they disagree on some issues, are ideological allies more than they are enemies. 

There has been much debate (see links at the end of this post) about whether libertarian-leaning conservatives  should vote for Kennedy, who is the best candidate, or Brown, who although he supports Massachusetts’s law mandating health insurance and opposes repealing the state income tax, is the best candidate who has a chance of winning. But these arguments are not about ideology – most of the participants agree that Kennedy’s views are better than Brown’s. The arguments are merely about strategy, or how best to advance the libertarian/conservative ideology. Disagreements about strategy should not be enough to cause anger and hostility.

But apparently they are.

At Scott Brown events that I went to, people ridiculed Joe Kennedy and called him crazy. They criticized him almost as much as they criticized Martha Coakley.

On Kennedy’s Facebook fan page, there is a picture of a sheep staring at a TV with Scott Brown on it and a hammer and sickle behind him. One Kennedy fan calls Brown a liberal. What seems to be Kennedy himself (but might be a staffer or campaign manager) relates a negative email he received from a Brown supporter and shares this person’s email address, inviting his supporters to “respond.”

I wish that the two camps could respectfully discuss their differing strategies without so much hostility. The nastiness makes me like both candidates less and dampens the excitement of this historic election. As someone who sees good arguments on both sides and refrains from insults, I feel that I don’t fit in with either. Libertarians and Republicans, let’s try to get along!

Hell just froze over. Massachusetts just elected a Republican senator, Scott Brown, to the seat that was held for 47 years by Ted Kennedy.

As long as I can remember, Massachusetts has had only Democratic representatives in Congress. No general election has been anything more than a formality. It has been considered a fact of life that a Republican running in Massachusetts cannot win and is just running to get his/her message out, like a third-party candidate would in a normal state. Putting (D-MA) after a Senator’s or Congressman’s name is considered redundant.

This is how African-Americans and Democrats felt when Obama got elected.

A caveat: I do not think that Brown is a great candidate, in terms of his views on the issues. He supported the Massachusetts law requiring everyone to have health insurance and opposed Question 1, the 2008 ballot initiative to repeal the state income tax.

But for a Republican to take Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat and vow to defeat the health bill that Kennedy championed? That’s just awesome.

Some blogs and websites with interesting opinions, both pro and con:

• The Humble Libertarian
• Uncouth Ruminations
• Center for Small Government
• Libertarian Republican
• Jeffrey Miron
• Poli-Tea