George Phillies has a roundup of Bob Barr’s 2008 Presidential Campaign spending. George Phillies lost the Libertarian Party’s nomination of President to Bob Barr at the 2008 Libertarian Party Convention.
Archive for the ‘Bob Barr’ Category
I voted in Pound Ridge, New York this morning where turnout appeared to be higher than previous years. I voted for Bob Barr for President because I believe voting for Bob Barr shows a clear message in favor of small government.
Update: Here is a video of George Carlin arguing against voting and democracy.
Voting isn’t really scary in the United States unless something goes extremely wrong. Choosing candidates to vote for now that is the scary part. Reason Magazine has a survey of its writers and contributors and who they plan to vote for President.
My answers are down below:
1. Who are you voting for in November? Bob Barr. He is not a perfect candidate but who is. Voting for Bob Barr gives the clearest signal to the world that I side with libertarians. I’m not going to vote for John McCain because he strikes me as crazy and believes that national greatness can be brought to the country by the government. Barack Obama is a liberal who wants to spend more than most of the other candidates running and would make George W. Bush look like a fiscal conservative. So I am voting for a former member of Congress who has recently lobbied on behalf of the MPP and opposed the bailout of the banks.
2. Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? In 2004: I voted for Badnarik and was a candidate for the electoral college for Badnarik in New York. Badnarik was a loon who could not drive himself anywhere because he refused to give the DMV in Texas his Social Security number. But Badnarik was not Bush or Kerry and he talked and believed in smaller government. In 2000: I voted for Harry Browne. I thought about voting for George W. Bush because he said he was against nation building but I am sure glad I did not make that mistake.
3. Is this the most important election in your lifetime? I’m not sure. Looking back the 2000 Presidential Election was a big deal. I don’t think we would have gone into Iraq after 9/11 if Al Gore had been President.
4. What will you miss about the Bush administration? Laura Bush. Laura Bush has been a very gracious first lady who has had very little involvement in policy which I admire in a first lady.
5. Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded and why? I’m tempted to agree with what Grover Norquist told Reason that it should be Dick Cheney for poetic justice reasons. I guess it would have to be one of the warmongering Presidents like Polk, Jackson, Wilson or Johnson.
The people at barrbomb.com seem to realize that the Bob Barr money bombs are not going to raise as much as Ron Paul’s money bombs. They have set the goal for the August 6th money bomb to raise $100,000 which is an impressive goal since the last money bomb for Bob Barr raised only $40,000. Bob Barr does not seem to be having the traction that Ron Paul had earlier this year either in terms of fund raising or media coverage.
Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the “We” Campaign event. Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent. I am, however, also aware that scientists differ on its causes, impact and remedies. I remain firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies.
I commend Mr. Gore for his efforts and leadership in this area, and urge Senators Obama and McCain to join me in studying, debating, and finding solutions to the problem of energy needs, consumption and effects. The American people deserve to hear all of our views and proposals on this issue and others. I am particularly pleased that Mr. Gore agrees that the public debate of this issue should include me so that the American people can make an informed choice after hearing a range of views. However, the fact that neither of the two major party candidates attended this event may indicate their unwillingness to address this important issue. Mr. McCain, for example, seems to have adopted already the internationalist approach and relying on the cumbersome and costly “cap and trade” formula and he may therefore be unwilling to engage in a real debate that would reveal how flawed that approach truly is.
All of the three major candidates have met with Al Gore to discuss global warming.
Thomas L. Knapp left a comment on the Third Party Watch blog post discussing global warming explaining a libertarian argument for a carbon tax:
In discussing the “green tax shift” with advocates thereof (Brian Holtz and Fred E. Foldvary, to name two), I’ve been at odds with them insofar as they advocate a carbon tax not for the purpose of paying for the removal of excess carbon from the atmosphere and sequestration of it, but as government’s “general revenue” source.
In my opinion, a government carbon reduction policy should pay for itself—barely. It shouldn’t be a source of revenue that enables the state to get up to unrelated fuckery.
The presumptive goal is to keep the carbon content of the atmosphere below x parts per million (the number I’ve heard thrown around a lot is 350, but it may be something else). If there’s a libertarian justification for that goal, said justification is that carbon in excess of x parts of million harms people or property, and that therefore pushing the ratio of carbon above x parts per million is an initiation of force.
It’s already getting complicated, but then throw into the complication the fact that there are not just 300-odd million Americans involved in emitting carbon, but another 6 billion people not in US jurisdiction.
Presumably there’s going to have to be an assessment of just how much carbon any one person can emit before crossing the threshold into initiation of force by contributing to exceeding the x parts per million threshold.
After that, rather than a tax, I’d prefer to see a destination-optional user fee. For every ton of carbon in excess of the threshold, the emitter can buy offset/sequestration from a private party at a market rate. If someone is caught “emitting in excess” without offsetting or sequestering, then why not go with the old civil standard of “treble damages?” The government fines them three times the market price of the offsets/sequestration they should have bought, buys TWICE as much on their behalf, and keeps 1/3 to cover the costs of enforcement/administration.
I suspect that most of this would take care of itself very quickly through the market—manufacturers would roll their automobiles, lawn mowers, etc. out of the factory with an “X Tons of Carbon VER purchased for this device at point of manufacture” sticker on them (in an amount in excess of emissions produced in the average life of the device type), utilities would fold the price of VERs into the kilowatt-hour charge, etc. On a personal level, investigating/charging someone with excess emissions would be subject to all the same probable cause, reasonable search, etc. constraints as any other state enforcement action
Barr would lead by example, ordering an immediate 10% cut in the Executive office for personnel and spending. Further, he would ask Congress, (both parties) to start cutting costs or “they will be next“. Any bill that increases the national debt will be vetoed. No increases in appropriations for any office will be tolerated. He would immediately put a freeze on all federal spending. He would also eliminate the Dept. of Education, reduce the size and scope of the Dept. of Energy, and establish a commission similar to the Grace Commission under Ronald Reagan. This group would examine every department and agency to determine their constitutionally based identity and function and prioritize eliminating those that don’t meet muster
The Washington Post has a video of an interview where Eric Pianin interviews Bob Barr about the election.
One of the things I liked about this interview was that Barr brought up Obama making it specifically clear he is not just going after John McCain’s voters. Barr should repeat to the anti-war Clinton voters that there is an anti-candidate running other than Obama.
Barr also brought up the point that McCain’s proposed assault on earmarks is not enough to fix the budget process. In many cases, earmarks just redirect funds that would otherwise be appropriated. Control of earmarks is a start but is not enough to get control of the increased rates of spending.
So far Ron Paul has not endorsed any candidate for President.
Ron Paul did not endorse John McCain because Paul though McCain did not represent small-government values.
Ron Paul has said highly favorable things about Bob Barr’s candidacy:
“He’s saying the things he should be saying. He’s joined the Libertarian Party and he presents these views and he talks our language. So I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message and that people will have a chance. That gives everybody a choice in the matter.”
Ron Paul can not fully endorse Bob Barr since Ron Paul wants to continue to work as a Republican congressman.
A poster at DailyKos called Caban suggests that liberal Democrats should support Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party. Caban’s logic is that if Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are on the ballot in many states Bob Barr will wind up taking votes away from John McCain. Bring it on! The more Bob Barr supporters the better, even if it is for the wrong reason.
Bob Barr has a new video on YouTube calling for cuts in government spending and tax reform.
Bob Barr states that cutting the size of the government spending is more important than changing tax policy. I like tax cuts a lot but the problem with the Bush administration has been government spending not the lack of tax cuts.
Bob Barr stresses the need for tax reform stating that any reform of the system would be better than what the United States has now. Bob Barr has been the supporter of the Fair Tax which is essentially a national sales tax plan. Bob Barr does mention he is open to other types of tax reform plans including a flat tax plan. This is good news because I dislike the fair tax because I am afraid it would impose a harsh regulatory burden on small businesses. Barr’s ability to consider other tax reform policies makes him a more of an attractive candidate for Libertarians.