TheBellCurve

Mr. Bell goes to Washington..

2008-07-20T12:20:00.012-04:00

For the most part, I don't get to town much. Hagerstown has a nice hardware store, and if it still had a lumberyard, I wouldn't have to venture out even as often as I do. Still, on occasion, a worthwhile adventure presents itself, and I wander out of my comfort zone.

I had the pleasure of visiting Washington D.C. for the first time in my life for a couple of days last week. Mark Rutherford, past chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, and John Vaught LaBeaume, editor of ElectionDissection.com , set up a chance for a few Libertarian candidates from Indiana to meet and conference with a few of the libertarian minded heavyweights in the nations capitol.

Mark accompanied Eric Schansberg, candidate for U.S. Representative, Steve Keltner, candidate for Indiana Senate,
and myself on a whirlwind one day tour.

We started out with the honor of meeting Dick Heller.
Dick Heller and me at the University Club

You may have heard of him. He's the Heller in the recent Washington D.C. vs. Heller decision that overturned the D.C. ban on the peoples ability to lawfully own a handgun. He's been in this fight for 5 years.

Apparently the powers to be in D.C. are unwilling to give up their control over their citizens so easily, though, and have instituted a different set of of overly restrictive laws in an effort to neuter the courts decision. Mr. Heller assured us that D.C. vs. Heller II is already in the works.

Thomas Jefferson said that "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance". It's good to know Dick Heller is still on watch.

We took a tour of the National Libertarian Party Headquarters, and taped some interviews with Volunteer Coordinator Austin Petersen. I'm happy to say we found a lot of young people involved with the LP in D.C. I'm happy because some of us old guys could sure use the help.

Then we had lunch with David Weigel. He's one of the editors at Reason and Reason.com. It was quite a treat for me, as I have long been a fan of Mr. Weigel's writing style and analysis. Enough so that I linked Reason to my campaign website, and use it as one of the news and opinion feeds. If I wasn't a Libertarian, I'd say it should be required reading.

We found that Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is passionate about his desire for Libertarians and Libertarian candidates to communicate libertarian ideas better to the voters.
Fred Smith and me at the CEI offices

It's something we all agreed needs to be done.It's certainly something I'm going to work on.You can find a lot of solid support for the benefits of competitive free enterprise at www.cei.org .

We also took the opportunity to tour the headquarters of one of the premiere think tanks of the world, the Cato Institute. We had a round table discussion (minus the table) with Tim Lynch, the Director of Cato's Project on Criminal Justice.
John and Eric at Cato Headquarters

If you are familiar with the works of Cato, you would have to agree that there are a lot of intelligent people in Washington. Unfortunately, they're not always in the right places or positions.

As I said earlier, it was a whirlwind day. It ended with an informal (and noisy) meet and greet with a group of DC area Libertarians. Again, most of them were younger than me, and a lot of them were younger than my children, so they probably didn't think it was as noisy as I did, but all in all, a nice evening.

From the tidbit section:

There were 5 of us traveling from the University Club to the Darlington House. Three of the group climbed into the first cab, while Eric and I grabbed the second. I've waited 56 years to shout "Follow that cab!!!!". I don't think Eric or the driver enjoyed it as much as I did, though.

Apparently drivers in D.C. believe that honking your horn can displace matter.

I had the chance to do a little touring before my flight home the next day was delayed. I went to see the reflecting pond where Forrest Gump's speech wasn't heard. I don't know why they can't find someone to pick up trash and pull weeds in the area. Hopefully some of those TSA agents from the airport can help if we go off of the Orange Level Alert. That's all I have to say about that.

There are a lot of memorials in Washington, for a lot of patriots, both soldiers and statesmen, that have given their lives and fortunes in an effort to protect our freedom. I hope we decide that we are not going to give that freedom up to easily.

To anybody.

Not me....

2008-07-13T08:52:00.002-04:00

It wasn't always easy to get one of kids to fess up when Mom asked who tracked mud across the living room floor, or when Dad asked who left the milkhouse door open. It really wasn't something you wanted to admit to.

We see the same thing a lot of times when it gets towards the end of an elected official's term of office. For the number of people who will admit voting for them, you have to wonder how Mitch or George ever won their elections.

I've had a lot of discussions with people explaining why I think they should vote for me this fall, and asking for their support in my race even if they cast their vote for another party in another race.

Most voters tell me they never vote a straight ticket, anyway, because they prefer to vote for the person instead of a party. I think that is a good thing. At least it shows they're thinking.

But in 2006, 43% of the voters in Wayne County cast straight ticket ballots, which tells me that people who cast straight ticket ballots don't talk to Libertarians.

I guess.

And then there were two...

2008-07-09T20:18:00.001-04:00

I'm running for the Indiana House of Representatives District 54 seat this year. It's the same seat I ran for in 2006. I learned earlier this week that the only candidates in the race are myself and Republican incumbent Tom Saunders.

In 2006, it was a three-way race, with Democrat David Sadler joining in. In that three-way race, I was able to win 6 precincts, and finish second in three others. I recieved 22% of the vote in Wayne County, and 14 1/2 % of the vote district wide.

Tom won with 46%.

Now, I'm not pretending that the 54% that didn't push the Republican button last time will vote for me this time. But hopefully, some of them will. And also, hopefully some of that 46% that did push the Republican button last time will decide that their property taxes didn't go down while their sales taxes went up, and maybe some of them will be ready for a change.

Tom's campaign out spent my campaign by $190,000.00 the last time out. I have no doubt he will outspend me by a lot this time, too.

While I don't have as much money, I do have some better ideas at www.electRexBell.com .

And this year, it's just the two of us.

What and how....

2008-07-02T06:38:00.004-04:00

I think most presidential candidates, like most people, want the same things. Generally speaking, we all want the United States to be free, safe and prosperous, although the definition of "free" varies from candidate to candidate and person to person. The main difference between the candidates is how the things we want should be accomplished. Since the poor will always be among us, certainly helping them out will always be necessary.

One of the core principles of Libertarian thought is that we should begin moving welfare from the tax burden and return it to private charity where it began and belongs. Traditionally, that was closer to the Republican way of thinking, while Democrats generally favored a little more involvement by the government.

While being an overtaxed family of modest means, we do support charities both inside and outside of our church as best we can, maintaining that we should keep the right to decide where our charitable dollars are spent.

A while back, George Bush decided to implement his faith
based initiative, where tax dollars were used even more to fund charities. Many Democrats were opposed to this plan, not for the right reasons in my opinion, but never the less, they were opposed to it.

As the line between Republicans and Democrats continues to blur, we find Barak Obama endorsing giving tax dollars to faith based charities. I'm anxious to hear the Democrats' response to the plan now.

I already know the Libertarian response.

What a waste....

2008-06-28T21:21:00.006-04:00

I just finished spending a week of evenings at our county fair. I’m not sure how long a person can survive on Lemon Shake-Ups and Elephant Ears, but know from experience you can make it at least 7 days. I’m sure there are people who believe that spending three dollars for some lemon seeds and sugar in a glass of water, or four dollars for an ounce of fried dough dragged through a bowl of cinnamon and sugar might be wasteful, but it sounded like a good idea at the time, and it did sustain me for a week. And if I was wasting money, at least it was my own.

While I have a lot of family and friends that are active in 4-H, my main reason for attending the fair every night was to work the booth that was promoting our local, state and national Libertarian candidates. (I just happen to be one myself.) Whenever we set up a booth, we always manage to attract a diverse crowd with diverse opinions. Some friendly, some not so friendly, but usually interesting and always welcome.

This year we found a lot more interest in the national ticket than usual, Libertarian Presidential Bob Barr in particular.
Apparently a lot of voters are dissatisfied with the choices the other two parties are offering. But we also heard a lot of the same concerns voters have expressed before. Inevitably, at every event, at least one person tells us that they like a lot of our ideas, but they feel that voting Libertarian would be wasting their vote.

Now admittedly, Libertarians are seldom favored to win, but voting shouldn’t be like betting on a horse race, and if choosing the winning candidate was the only criteria for deciding whether or not your vote was wasted, then about half of the votes are wasted in every election.

I became convinced several years ago that the only way to waste a vote is to use it voting for something that you don’t want. Say, for instance, that you want lower taxes, but you vote for a person or party that continues to raise and create new taxes. That is a wasted vote. Or say, for instance, that you want government that isn’t quite so intrusive in your private life, but you vote for a person or party that continues to expand government. That is a wasted vote.

If you waste three or four dollars on some less than healthy fair food, you can probably recover by purchasing one less gallon of gas and walking 15 or 20 miles. Wasted votes have a longer lasting effect, and they’re a little harder to get over.

But we can get over it. We just need to stop wasting our votes voting for something we don’t want. And this November would be a good time to start.

Fair enough?...

2008-06-22T22:19:00.003-04:00

Stop by the Libertarian Party of Wayne County booth at the Wayne County Fair in Richmond this week. Meet the candidates, ask questions, take the Worlds Smallest Political Quiz, sign up for a door prize, or just sit and rest a spell. Or all of the above.

The booth will be open each evening from 6:00 until 9:00.

We promise to be on our best behavior, because we're right across the street from the Sheriff's Mobile Command Unit and Tactical Response Vehicle.

Death by a thousand cuts...

2008-06-22T07:07:00.000-04:00

Well, they're at it again. Or still. The president and the congress are again thumbing their collective noses at the 4th amendment guarantees of protection against unreasonable searches. If that disgusts you like it does Libertarians, you might want to consider voting against it this fall.

Here's the press release from the Barr for President campaign:

"June 19, 2008 6:33 pm EST

Atlanta, GA -- “In asserting his power to conduct warrantless searches of Americans, President George W. Bush has expressed his clear contempt for the Fourth Amendment. So has Sen. John McCain, despite his reputation as a supposed maverick,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. Now the Democratic-led Congress is preparing to approve a so-called compromise that gives the Bush administration almost everything it wants in order to expand dramatically the power of the federal government to surveil American citizens without court orders. “America desperately needs leaders who will stand up for the Bill of Rights,” observes Barr, “not those who flaunt its vital and time-honored protections.”

The president already has the power to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists. The 30-year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides for court oversight, along with the requirement that the government get a warrant. “The court has virtually never rejected a request,” notes Barr. “Changes in technology require updating the law, not gutting it.”

However, the bill being advanced by the Democratic leadership “would allow the government to listen to millions of phone calls by Americans with neither an individualized warrant nor an assessment of probable cause,” he adds. Although the law would offer some protection when a particular American was expressly targeted, even then “the proposed rules fall short of what the Fourth Amendment mandates.”

Moreover, the bill would immunize telephone companies from wrong-doing, protecting them against law suits even when the firms violated the law by helping the government conduct warrantless searches. Past cases would simply be dismissed. “Conservatives once said, ‘you do the crime, you do the time,’ but no longer,” observes Barr. Now virtually the entire Republican Party is prepared to sacrifice the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans in favor of federal government power.

And the Democratic leadership is ready to do the same. Congressional Democrats privately say that they don’t want to take the political risk of opposing the president. “But the individual liberty of Americans is not a political football, something to be tossed about when an election looms,” insists Barr. “It is the constitutional duty of lawmakers of both parties to defend the Constitution, even when they believe doing so might be politically inconvenient.”

Advocates of abandoning the Constitution warn us that we live in dangerous times. But Americans have long lived in dangerous times. “That didn’t stop the nation’s founders from creating a Constitution that secured individual liberty and limited government,” notes Barr. “It shouldn’t stop us from following the Constitution today.”

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom."

"Time, time, time, see whats become of me"...

2008-06-18T06:48:00.002-04:00

A few weeks back we had some fun making fun of some proposed government spending concerning a plan to synchronize their watches. Although we haven't been able to pinpoint when or how all of the funding was approved, apparently workers are stringing cables through the county building to make the hookups.

Since every cloud is supposed to have a silver lining, I've been looking for something positive to come out of this fiasco. Maybe I've found it.

Hopefully, with the new system, we will be able to pinpoint the exact time the taxpayers lost control of their government.

Is that your final offer?...

2008-06-12T22:06:00.003-04:00

I picked up the newspaper when I got home this evening and saw that the government has predicted that the price of gasoline will peak at $4.15 a gallon.
I wish the gas stations in Hagerstown would have read the paper too, because when I came through town they were selling their lowest priced gas for $4.19 a gallon.

I guess we shouldn't be overly surprised. This is the same government that predicted (when Mitch Daniels was in charge of the predicting) that the Iraq war would cost $60 million, tops. It's also the government that predicted that Medicare would cost each worker 25 cents per week, tops.

When it comes to predicting how much anything will cost, our government has never been very good at it, so I'm pretty sure they really don't have any idea where the cost of a gallon of gas will end up. A lot will depend on circumstances that are beyond their control. Like how much oil other countries produce, and how much of that oil other countries are willing to buy.

Not that our government couldn't help us out if it wanted to. Henry David Thoreau said "this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way." Unfortunately, this government has become less willing to get out of the way than it used to be.

Government regulations have prevented any new oil refineries from being built in the United States for over 30 years. Government regulations prevent drilling for oil both on and off shore. Government could allow private companies to produce ethanol from switch grass and cane instead of artificially propping up the market for ethanol made from corn.

Government could do us all a lot of good by simply getting out of the way. But I'm not counting on that happening, anymore than I'm counting on gas peaking at $4.15 a gallon.

Something refreshing from the Barr....

2008-06-05T21:18:00.003-04:00

I've made some mistakes in my life. I'd be the second to admit that. My wife would be the first. The worst thing about making mistakes is the problems that accompany them. The best thing about making mistakes is that, if you live through them, you have the chance to learn not to make them again. That's a good thing, I think.

I caught a clip of Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr on the Colbert Report tonight. As expected, Colbert made some humorous straw man suggestions about Libertarians,(e.g., equating opposing the FDA to drinking lead based paint) and then moved on to some more serious questions about Mr.Barr's past votes on some less than libertarian bills in Congress concerning the Patriot Act and the Drug War.

It was refreshing to hear a politician say that some of the things he had supported weren't right, and that we need to change directions. That's probably as close as we're going to come to hearing a politician say that he made a mistake, and I doubt that we'll hear it from anybody else.

But wouldn't it be nice to hear the Republicans (and Democrats) admit that their aggressive foreign policy is bankrupting our nation, and that their oppressive domestic policies have cost us more freedom than the nations we fight with?

How much better off would we be if the Democrats (and Republicans) would admit that the social and entitlement programs they have created to provide all things for all people are unsustainable, even if we count on our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay for them?

Wouldn't it be refreshing if they all would admit that they had made mistakes, but were now willing to make amends?

Wouldn't it be nice if a few of them would follow Bob Barr's lead?

Wouldn't that be refreshing?

The spend we're in...

2008-06-04T07:29:00.002-04:00

Due to the increase in the number and size of our grandchildren, it became apparent recently that we were going to need a larger vehicle, regardless of gas prices. My wife is the shopper in the family, so most of the decision making fell to her. It was an exhaustive process to decide on the best vehicle, best gas mileage, best trade-in deal, best price and best warranty before she was able to tell me which one I wanted, and where we would spend our money.

By contrast, I attended a town board meeting the other evening where the board members spent $120,000.00 of taxpayer money on some home improvement projects at some apparently secret locations in less than a minute.

The two scenarios reminded me of the old adage about how we spend our money:

-When someone spends their own money on themselves, they are careful about how much they spend and what they spend it on.

-When someone spends their own money on someone else, they are careful of what they spend, but not of what they spend it on.

-When someone spends other peoples' money on themselves, they are careful of what they spend it on, but not of how much they spend.

-When someone spends other peoples' money on other people, they don't really care how much they spend or what they spend it on.

Elected officials and bureaucrats spend other peoples' money on other people all of the time. The only solution I can see is to limit the amount they have to spend by reducing taxes and the programs they are allowed to spend other peoples money on.

The only way to do that is to start electing some people that favor smaller government. Libertarians, perhaps.

Raising the Barr...

2008-05-28T20:28:00.004-04:00

I just got home from my third Libertarian Party National Convention. In some respects, it was a lot like the first two. This one was in Denver. They always hold them in some big city where the posted speed limit is apparently merely a suggested minimum.

It's something you can count on at every convention. Just like you can count on one of our more colorful members from California to show up in what might be described as "unconventional" attire. This year for the first session it was pirate attire, followed by the ever popular Statue of Liberty, and then a couple of mystery outfits that I was unable to identify. He always manages to maneuver himself to be in front of the C-SPAN cameras, I guess in hopes of lending his own version of credibility to the party. This years costumes were at least less revealing than the mini-skirt that was worn a few years ago, a thinly veiled reference, I suspect, that the LP is simply too small to hide its nuts.

There was the usual mind-numbing by-law and platform discussion and rewriting, pitting the purists against the pragmatists, and the ever present argument over whether the LP should simply be working towards reducing the cost and intrusiveness of government, or spending its energy opposing the cult of the omnipotent state.

Also as usual, the attendees were treated to a long list of Libertarian speakers, some famous, and some not so famous. I was especially impressed by one of the not so famous, a certain Libertarian judge from Hagerstown, Susan Bell. When the convention committee first asked her to speak, she said she was inclined to decline. I'm glad I was able to convince her to accept the invitation. So was the audience. So was she, I think.

One thing that did happen at this convention, that usually doesn't happen, is that the delegates nominated a presidential candidate that people outside of libertarian circles have actually heard of. His name is Bob Barr. He was a United States Representative from Georgia. That was when he was a Republican. When he became disenchanted with the GOP, he joined the Libertarians. Like most everybody that was something else before they became a Libertarian, Barr brings some baggage from his past. He wasn't always accepting of individual rights.

A number of Libertarians are unwilling to forgive Barr of his past transgressions, and some question the validity of his transformation. Not me. Maybe because I used to be a Republican. I used to believe that since drug abuse is bad, the government's war on drugs must be good. I used to believe that government had the right to license marriage. I used to believe that government had the right to take something from someone and give it to someone else. I used to believe that government had rights. Now, not so much.

So I'm willing to give Mr. Barr the benefit of the doubt. Even though he may not be as far in his libertarian journey as some of the other candidates in Denver, and even though he may never get as far in his libertarian journey as some of the other candidates. Along with some past baggage, he also brings the ability to attract some badly needed press to a very worthy cause, and as I mentioned in this article before the convention, all of that could go a long way toward helping local and state candidates in their efforts to reduce government, and in opposing the cult of the omnipotent state.

Libertarianism 101..my version

2008-05-18T08:23:00.011-04:00

In a recent discussion, one of the participants blamed the lack of aid to the Myanmar cyclone victims on some Libertarian characteristics of the military government there. It's a common mistake. Libertarians haven't always explained their principles all that well.

And a lot of people, through choice or misunderstanding, fail to draw a distinction between what are called large "L" Libertarians, small "L" libertarians, and anarchists. While there are similarities, there are also some differences. Anarchists are probably best described as being in opposition of all government. Small "L" libertarians are a little more accepting of a little bit of government, as long as it doesn't interfere with an individuals rights.

Large "L" Libertarians, which I consider myself, are pretty much in line with the small "L" libertarians, with a dash of pragmatism added. They generally support a constitutionally limited government, while realizing that our original Constitution fell short of protecting every ones' rights, and might need an occasional amendment. I think they are more likely to belong to the Libertarian Party, although there are certainly a lot of small "L" members. I can personally testify that it makes for lively conventions.

One thing that Libertarians, libertarians and civilized anarchists generally agree on is the non-initiation of force. That doesn't mean you don't have the right to defend yourself, or to help others defend themselves. It simply means you don't have the right to initiate aggression against another person, or another person's property.And you don't have the right to designate another person or group to initiate that aggression on your behalf. It is what sets the Libertarian Party apart from other parties, and it's one thing that prevents Myanmar and other governments around the world from ever being considered libertarian.

As simply as possible, the Libertarian Party holds these principles:

• That all people possess certain unalienable natural rights, and that among these are rights to life, liberty, justly acquired property, and self-governance.

• That the only moral basis of government is the preservation and protection of unalienable natural rights.

• That no person or institution, public or private, has the right to initiate the use of physical force or fraud against another person, and that all people are bound, without contract, to abstain from infringing upon the natural rights of other people.

• That all people are entitled to choose their own lifestyles, as long as they do not forcibly impose their values on others.

• That the voluntary and unrestricted exchange of goods and services is fundamental to a peaceful and harmonious society.

Somebody once said that "There may be two Libertarians somewhere that agree on everything, but I'm not one of them." I'm not either, but I think you will find that most agree that we need a smaller, less expensive and less intrusive government.

Of course, there are a lot of people that don't consider themselves to be Libertarians that will agree with that.

As I said at the outset, this is just my version, and I'm pretty sure that even if we find that other Libertarian out there that agrees with me, I'm just as sure that with just a little effort we can find something here to disagree about. Thats another thing Libertarians do.

Things are tough all over...

2008-05-15T19:23:00.003-04:00

There was a story on the evening news about the financial difficulties the city of Louisville, Kentucky is facing. In order to stay afloat, the mayor has decided to park non-essential government vehicles.

My question would be, if they are non-essential, what was the government doing with them in the first place?

Here in Wayne County, the City of Richmond is finally considering limiting take-home police cars as a cost cutting measure. Again, I don't understand why elected officials and bureaucrats only worry about saving taxpayers money when there is a crisis. Wouldn't it make more sense to operate the government as economically as possible all of the time?

At any rate, I hope the city is able to save a lot of gasoline with its new policy. Maybe we can combine it with the gas the sheriff will save with his new motorcycle, and perhaps come up with enough to drive the department's Armored Personnel Carrier around the block to show off its new paint job.

Maybe not.

Guilty as charged...

2008-05-11T17:01:00.009-04:00

In a recent Courier Times article, my honorable Republican opponent for this fall's District 54 race, Tom Saunders,
states that "Rex wants you to do away with a lot of government, but I'm not sure that's what the public wants." He's right about me wanting to do away with a lot of government.

Here in Wayne County, the Economic Development Commission is getting ready to take $50,000.00 from the taxpayers and spend it on a feasibility study to see if we need another industrial park next to our industrial park. Last year the EDC took money from workers that were making $7.50 per hour and gave it to a company that grossed $2 billion the year before. The year before that taxpayers paid to build a road through a county commissioner's business development property. In Indianapolis, the government took $625 million from the taxpayers to build a stadium for a multi-millionaire NFL team owner. They also took $3.5 million to demolish the old stadium that the taxpayers still owed $70 million on.

You can't build a shelter for your family without asking for the government's permission. Your barber can't cut your hair unless the government gives it's permission. It's nearly impossible to find three things that the government doesn't tax or regulate.

So yes, I have to plead guilty. I do want to do away with a lot of government. I want to do away with a lot of government agencies that exist simply to transfer wealth from one person to another. I want to do away with a lot of government agencies that exist only to protect us from ourselves, even if it is for our own good.

I certainly don't want to prevent people from investing in businesses or stadiums if they so desire, and if a person wants to find someone to oversee his or her personal affairs, I don't want to stand in their way. But those of us who prefer to make our own financial and personal decisions should be able to do so with a lot less government interference than we have currently.

As far as to Tom's opinion of what the public wants, I'll have to admit that in past elections, people haven't been voting to do away with a lot of government. But then again, they haven't really had the opportunity to vote that way. They could either vote for the Democrats version of a lot of government, or they could vote for the Republican version of a lot of government. Or they could not vote at all.

And I'll grant you that there are a lot of people out there that like a lot of government. Somebody once said that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul. I'm pretty sure those people won't vote for me.

But there are also a lot of people out there that are tired of being robbed and managed, and whether they have been voting for something they didn't want, or not voting at all, I plan to give them a chance to vote for what they do want. Less government.

That's what Libertarians do.

They just can't help it...

2008-05-08T12:26:00.005-04:00

Addiction can be a terrible thing. When were first married, my wife worked at Reid Hospital as a Respiratory Therapist. She tells of a man who was given a tracheotomy, and continued to smoke cigarettes by holding a lit one next to the plastic tube coming out of his throat.

Some habits are extremely hard to break. Knowing that, I was pleased when the Hagerstown Town Council decided at its April meeting not to renew its membership with the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns (IACT) last month. Apparently IACT felt the need to increase its dues, and it was heartening to hear the town council president state that the council needed to start being more prudent with the way taxpayers' money was spent, in light of the projected upcoming revenue cuts.

Admittedly, I've never been a fan of IACT. As I've stated in the past, IACT offers nothing for taxpayers. It is fanatical in its support of new and higher taxes, and increased government power. So I was happy to see the council's decision to stop sending any more of our money to such an organization.

Now, I realize the town council is still spending public money buying and tearing down houses to increase the amount of government owned property and deacrease the amount of privately owned property in town. And I know that they have agreed to give 10,000 tax dollars to a consulting firm to study the feasibility of building an industrial park next to an industrial park. Still, I was happy to see at least one instance of some real hard-core fiscal responsibility.

But then, much to my chagrin, Tom Bredeweg from the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns showed up at the May meeting and asked the board to reconsider its decision not to renew its membership.

The board agreed to study more information and then reconsider its decision.

To which beleaguered taxpayers cry, "Stand firm, town board, stand firm!"

Can I get an Amen?!?!...

2008-05-04T11:46:00.003-04:00

Third party candidates usually face an uphill battle. For one thing, incumbents get re-elected about 95% of the time, and third party candidates are rarely the incumbent. For another thing, districts are often designed as safe havens for one of the major parties through a process called gerrymandering.

There is also the money thing. I was tickled to raise almost $12,000.00 for my campaign for the Indiana House District 54 seat in 2006. Unfortunately for me, my Republican opponent raised and spent over $200,000.00. He also won the election.

Still, I believe that our government needs some radical changes, and I believe the Libertarian Party has the best ideas for change, so I'll keep working for change, even if the odds are long.

That doesn't mean that Libertarian candidates shouldn't work to cut those odds, if possible. With that in mind, I called Reverend Paul aside after church this morning, and asked him if he had plans to appear on national TV over and over again, ranting and raving like a crazy man about something that displeased him.

He said he had no such plans.

I thanked him kindly.

Libertarians need all the help they can get.

Are you ready?....

2008-04-30T22:24:00.001-04:00

Being grandparents lets you relive a lot of the experiences you had when you were raising your own children. Some pleasant, some not so pleasant. My wife and I are now embarking on our second round of “potty training”. While I have never been overly enthusiastic about changing diapers, especially with the rinsing and pinning required with the cloth diapers of my early parenthood, I did find that I tolerated that chore better than the dreaded cry of, “Daddy, come wipe me!”

But I imagine I’ll get through it. I did the last time around, anyway. I do remember getting some advice from parents and in-laws concerning the timing of the training. The general consensus seemed to be that there was no use starting before the child was ready, and that different children decided they were ready at different ages and stages. I know that applied to my children, and I have a strong suspicion it will apply to my grandchildren as well.

I suppose that’s how things have worked all along. Different individuals tolerate and react to things differently. Back at Millville Grade School, classmates would pester my old buddy Stinky Wilmont mercilessly, and sometimes he would make it through an entire recess without decking one of them. His brother Gilbert lost his composure much easier, and most of his tormenters moved on pretty shortly.

Our Founding Fathers came to this country and put up with British rulers for 150 years before deciding that it was time for a change. Of course, some came to that decision sooner than others, and some never came to it at all. It took the French a little longer to start their revolution, but once they got it started, they kept it going a little longer, at least the ones that didn’t lose their heads over it did

According to a recent Rasmussen Report survey, the American people may be ready for another change. The number of people who self-identify as Republicans has fallen to just over 30% since the 2004 elections, while those who self-identify as Democrats dropped to about 36%. I don’t know how most of them are identifying themselves politically now, or even if they are identifying themselves at all. I do know where a few of them have ended up.

Bob Barr, a former Republican U.S. Representative from Georgia, and former United States Attorney , has left the GOP and joined the Libertarian Party. There’s a better than average chance that he is going to seek the party’s presidential nomination. There’s also a better than average chance he’ll get it.

Mike Gravel, the, uhhh, colorful Democratic Senator from Alaska, has left his old party, joined the Libertarians, and thrown his hat into the LP presidential ring, although getting the nomination might be a bit of an uphill battle.

The LP has seen significant growth recently, with membership increasing 14% in the first half of 2007. Gallup Surveys, Pew Research Center and the American National Election Studies find that about 14% of voting age Americans now hold libertarian values of fiscal conservatism and social tolerance.
Maybe not yet enough to win a presidential election, but certainly enough to influence the outcome of that election. And certainly enough to bring about a change.

And we all know that elected officials, like diapers, need to be changed once in a while.

Does anybody really know what time it is?...

2008-04-25T20:41:00.002-04:00

Does any body really care?

Apparently. At a time when a lot of people are struggling to keep their taxes and bills paid, Wayne County officials want to spend $20,000.00 to synchronize their watches. From the Palladium-Item website:

"Fred Griffin, emergency management director, told commissioners Wednesday morning about plans to purchase a more than $20,000 system that would keep the clocks used by all the emergency services consistent, including police and fire, in Wayne County and Richmond."

Here's a suggestion. How about pulling out that cell phone that we're already paying for and checking the time on it.

I can't say for sure that they will be right, but you can bet they will be consistent.

Then they could apply the $20,000.00 to the $50,000.00 they want to spend on a feasibility study to see if we need an industrial park next to our industrial park.

Or not.

How much is it going to cost, and who is going to pay for it?

2008-04-23T21:06:00.002-04:00

I try to be careful about criticizing the major party presidential candidates. It's not that they don't need it, but all to often criticizing a Democrat is assumed to be an endorsement for the Republican, and vice versa. This morning at coffee, when I was talking about how much money Barak Obama's proposed programs were going to cost, another coffee drinker at the table asked, "Well, would you rather stay in Iraq for 100 years?" I asked him if there was a way to control spending and bring the troops home. He said that wasn't an option.

That's a shame.

By the way, Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado had some studies done on the cost of Obama's programs. I'm sure he used our money to pay for the studies, and for what its worth, this is what he found:

"Sen. Obama has offered 188 campaign proposals that would add up to at least $300 billion in new annual spending. That has a 5-year cost of more than $1.4 TRILLION.
Of the 188 new spending proposals, the $300 billion price tag only covers 111 proposals. There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.
This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget.
To put this in perspective, this $300 billion spending proposals would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures). It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net). It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever."

We have an idea how much it is going to cost. And if you are a taxpayer, I think you have a pretty good idea who is going to pay for it.

As I have stated many times in the past, we shouldn't have to choose between a fiscally responsible domestic policy and a sane foreign policy. But if your voting for the Republican or the Democrat, you can't have both, and your going to end up paying a lot for the one that you don't get.

Every little bit helps...a little...

2008-04-12T11:56:00.002-04:00

"Like the old lady said when she pee'd in the ocean, 'Every little bit helps'".

When I was growing up and helping on our farm, my Dad used to work that phrase into the conversation pretty often. At least when an old lady wasn't around. I think the phrase applies well to congress and its attempts to rein in earmarks in the budget. Several newspapers in central Indiana have been running editorials praising our Representative Mike Pence for his efforts, and I certainly don't want to belittle any effort to curb government spending.

But we need to keep in mind that earmarks account for about 1% of the federal budget, and considering that less than 10% of them are targeted for elimination, I'm not sure the savings to the taxpayers merits the media attention the cuts have been receiving. It's not that I don't appreciate the effort, but I fear they are overlooking the real problem.

For example, around the corner from my home is the Brick Cemetery. Down the road a little further lives a man with a backhoe and a dumptruck. When the cemetery needs his services, he drives down to the cemetery, by himself, and digs a grave.

A little further down the road in the other direction is a cemetery that is managed by the city of New Castle, and it's employees. Last week, digging a grave at that cemetery required a backhoe, 3 trucks, and 7 men.

There may be things that are necessary for government to do, but there is very little that government does efficiently. We might have to accept the cost of ineffeciency from the agencies that perform the legitimate government function of protecting its citizens from force and fraud, but we don't have to accept in areas where the government shouldn't be involved in the first place.

Cutting earmarks might save us a tenth of a percent at the federal level, but real savings can only come by reducing government to its proper role at the local, state and federal level.

Someone said that while tornados might receive the most press, termites do a thousand times more damage.

Look around. I bet you can find some termites that need a little press.

Now cut that out...

2008-04-01T22:01:00.000-04:00

One of the problems we face when we talk about eliminating property taxes is the insistence by our elected officials that the loss of revenue would result in the loss of government services. The first things they mention are police and fire protection. I guess that is the first lesson in Politics 101. Whenever taxpayers start to complain about excessive government spending, threaten them with the loss of police and fire protection. And if they complain about the cost of the new high school gymnasium, threaten to lay-off some teachers.

But when reasonable people face a shortfall in their funding, the first cuts in spending shouldn’t involve basic trips to the grocery or their chosen form of shelter. That’s not to say that the money we spend on necessities couldn’t be spent a little more wisely, or that some of the frills couldn’t be eliminated. But wouldn’t it make more sense to start with dropping the premium channels from your cable provider, or maybe canceling that gym membership, or your subscription to the “Cookie of the Month” service?

From the federal to the state to the local level, politicians have lost sight of what they should really be doing, which is providing basic, essential government services. Any talk of eliminating a tax, or lowering a tax, or actually cutting government spending, threatens the growth of government, which in turn threatens the power of the politicians.

They assume we will accept that any reduction in our taxes will result in a reduction in government services. They are fond of warning us to be careful what we ask for, because we might get it.

While that might be true, I would suggest that taxpayers be especially careful when asking for something from the government, because you never know what you are going to end up with.

You might reasonably ask your government to take the taxes you pay on gasoline and use them to build and repair our roads. What you end up with is nearly half of that money being spent on flower gardens, hiking trails, bicycle paths, studies on adolescent obesity and thousands of other pork-barrel projects.

You might ask your government to simply educate your children, and instead end up paying for a top-heavy bureaucracy that costs 3 to 4 times more per student than private schools.

You might ask your government for health insurance to protect your poorest senior citizens, and instead end up with a program that spends your tax money to furnish Viagra for the wealthiest segment of our population.

You might ask your government to raise an army to protect you from foreign invaders, and instead end up paying to have troops stationed in 140 countries around the world, providing security for nations quite capable of providing their own.

Sometimes getting what you ask for isn’t nearly as bad as getting what you didn’t ask for.

I think I’m ready to ask for a little less government. How about you?

Just shoot me...

2008-03-25T07:24:00.002-04:00

There are always some facts of life we must accept no matter how disappointing or distasteful they might be. Barring some sort of miracle, John McCain, Barak Obama, or Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. I wish it wasn't so.

I wish we had a viable candidate that was willing to bring our troops home and reduce spending. Unfortunately, the candidate who claims he will bring most of the troops home the quickest also has plans to saddle taxpayers an extra $1.4 trillion in domestic spending during the course of his term.

Our choices are, 1, almost end the war soon and increase spending, or 2, end the war a little later, unless we can't, and increase spending, or 3, stay in Iraq for the next 100 years and increase spending, only not as much as the other guys, unless we need to.

If ever the voters needed another option, this is the time. The other day someone said that if somebody put a gun to his head and told him to vote for one of these three candidates, he would have to tell them to just pull the trigger.

I would have to agree.

Getting their fix...

2008-03-18T07:41:00.000-04:00

We’ve all seen it before. Maybe a friend or family member who really needs to give up tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Try as they might, their addiction is so strong it overrides their good intentions. It doesn’t necessarily make them bad people, but their dependency hampers their ability to make the right choices.

Our state legislature just spent 3 months wrestling with the property tax mess, and you certainly have to give them credit for being creative. Their goal was to quiet the public outcry over sharply increased property tax bills, and they may have achieved that goal among some property tax payers, if only temporarily.

The legislation they just passed, limiting taxes to 1% of a homes assessed value, will supposedly cut the average homeowners tax bill by 30%. Of course that is based on your 2006 bill, which was likely more than 30% higher than your 2005 bill. And it won’t fully take effect until 2010, by which time your property’s assessed value may very well increase, followed closely then by your tax bill.

In their efforts to save money and placate a disgruntled public, our lawmakers also moved to eliminate elected assessors in some townships, replacing them with county assessors who will then hire other assessors to figure out how much your house is worth every time the state spends millions of your dollars on a reassessment.

In their efforts to meet the constitutional requirement that taxes be “fair and equal”, they have provided legislation that will allow neighbors living side by side in identical houses to pay a vastly different amount in taxes. A 65 year-old who makes $30,000.00 a year will pay less than a 65 year-old who makes $31,000.00 a year. A 65 year-old who makes $30,000.00 a year will pay less than a 25 year-old who makes $20,000.00 a year.

In the same “identical home” situation, a person that rents the home to another person would face tax increases double those of a person that lives in the home they own, and if they choose to operate a business out of that home, the tax increases could triple.

In spite of their efforts, our officials have failed with the current legislation to make property taxes equal, and regardless of any changes that might be made, they can never make property taxes fair. They are, by nature, a confiscatory tax. Even in the unlikely event that the legislature would agree to tax all property evenly, we could never escape the fact that if a person became unable to pay the taxes on their home, the government could seize their home and auction it off to the highest bidder.

Taxpayers can justifiably come up with many reasons to eliminate property taxes. Politicians have just one reason to keep them. Property taxes give the government its surest form of income. For politicians who are addicted to spending other peoples money, it the best way to assure they get their “fix”. While they may have shuffled some of the property tax burden to increased sales taxes and local option taxes, the largest portion of property taxes remain intact, and the cost to the taxpayers of operating the government continues to grow.

Governor Daniels has said this new legislation will make Indiana America’s best place to own a home or business. If we really want to do that, we need to eliminate property taxes altogether. Libertarians have presented plans to do just that. Unfortunately, those plans involve reducing government spending, and that sends our current legislators into withdrawal.

The buzzards are back....

2008-03-16T06:50:00.003-04:00

Some things you can count on. On March 12th, the buzzards returned to their summer home in the trees at the west edge of Hagerstown. I don't know how they do it, but they always seem to know it's time to migrate back. You can set set your calendar by them every year.

You can also count on the state legislature not to do anything about the cost of operating our government. While they did manage to shuffle some of the property tax burden over to sales tax and local option taxes, they did nothing to address the entitlement spending and waste that continues to take more and more from our pockets.

I saw a couple of buzzards picking at the bones of an unfortunate road kill deer yesterday afternoon.

It reminded me a lot of our legislators.