Party Three

"A third party will be a reality within the next 20 years. It will be a socially
libertarian party, that is fiscally conservative and protectionist, yet serious
and logical about national defense." - RAM

I thought I'd pull ARM's prediction from the comments section for discussion - because, to tell you the truth, it sounds pretty good to me. Maybe we take the gaps in his brief sketch and, in the words of The Police, "fill it up! fill it up!"

Socially libertarian: I am assuming that this means the government will keep its nose out of people's private lives. Overall, I think this is great. Gays can get married. No more government money to abstinence preaching. Fewer attempts to limit speech. There are also some questionable positions of true social libertarianism that will never fly with the public at large, but which I could personally agree with to some extent - like legalizing drugs and repealing gun control laws. And finally, there are libertarian principles that I just couldn't get behind, like abandoning professional licensure, eliminating mandatory school attendance, and of course the big one: ditching government-assisted health care. Overall, though, I think a third party that believes the government should butt out of our private lives would resonate with most Americans outside of the religious right.

Fiscally conservative: Like the Clinton Administration? Sorry, I just can't resist that. But seriously, I think damn near every American can agree that the government should spend as little as possible, and keep the budget balanced. The question is how. Most money goes to entitlement spending, which can and should be both trimmed and reorganized. But where will this third party come down on things like making social security a need-based system, reinstating the estate tax, and, as mentioned above, health care? In any event, our third party should push for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Seriously, how about an amendment that actually means something for a change.

And what else does "fiscally conservative" mean? Is it code for "let the free market reign?" I'm all behind responsible non-deficit spending, but I'll never subscribe to the voodoo trickle down theories. Where's our third party on things like minimum wages, progressive taxation, and capital gains taxes?

Protectionist: Meaning anti-free-trade? I can't say I fall on either side of the dividing line on this issue. Protectionism seems to me to foster laziness. Free trade might punch our economy up a little bit, but it forces competition not just within our country but with the rest of the world. At the same time, I think we can use protectionist methods to affirm our commitment to the environment and global human rights, and use our trading power to force other countries to up their standards in those regards. These are all tough issues, especially politically. Farmers want subsidies. Unions want high-paying jobs.

Serious and logical about national defense: There seems to be national agreement that neither party has this characteristic. But it's also so amorphous as to be meaningless.

Flag flap fails

On June 27, Senate Joint Resolution 12 went down in the Senate. This bill would have put a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to criminalize the act of descrating the flag. The measure fell one vote short of the 67 needed to pass.

My most recent post shows the letter I sent the two senators from my state. Senator Burns (R-MT) replied only today:

I voted in support of this amendment, as I have in the past, because I feel the flag serves as a reminder of sacrifice of Americans who have fought and died for out freedoms. Our flag is a symbol of freedom for Americans and has long been a symbol of hope for our oppressed friends beyond our borders. The feelings that so many Americans have toward this symbol is enough to show that it is not just an inanimate object that should be subject to desecration at the whims of those who are upset with our nation. This symbol should be held with high esteem and protected to honor what so many brave Americans have done for their country and for what this great country has done for all of us.

Fortunately, the Senate – by a margin slightly larger than its collective IQ – has protected a bit of what this great country has done for all of us.

The Flag and the Fury

Check out the proposed constitutional amendment coming before the Senate in a couple weeks. I urge you to contact your senators and express your opinion. Here's what I wrote to mine.

Dear Senator:

I’m writing this message on Flag Day. I flew my flag today and was proud to do so. If the Senate passes the anti-desecration amendment, that flag is toast. I’ll burn that puppy in the public square.

Here’s why. The flag stands for our freedom, hard won and at a dear cost. At the core of that freedom is the right of free expression. The constitutional amendment before the Senate would take a big bite out of that right. If passed, the amendment would, in effect, desecrate the flag.

And if I burned my flag in the public square, it would not be desecration. It would be euthanasia. Please protect our freedom -- vote against the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Rocket

Roger Clemens recently committed to the Houston Astros for another season at a price tag of $12 million. The Astros need him, considering their freeze after a hot start and Oswalt's recent injury. The Rocket decided to shake off some rust with three minor league appearances with three different teams. Last night, he pitched for the Lake County Captains, a Cleveland Indians affiliate. In the first inning, Clemens hung a splitter and this 19 year old, maybe a year out of high school, went dong on it. Amazing. This is a good read link below as this Mac that I am on refuses to load my toolbar.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2473587

Give a Penny, Take a Penny

On a typical weekday, I buy a grahn-day cup of coffee at Starbucks in the morning. Cost: $1.87. I drop the dime and three pennies into the tip jar. Then, for lunch, I usually get a Caesar salad and a roll at Soprafina. Cost: $8.08. This inevitably yields a pocketful of change, including two pennies. That's five pennies a day.

I leave the pennies on top of the pop machine in the afternoon.

I hate pennies. If I find one in my pocket, it's like a cockroach. I toss it in the street.

Our leading economists are saying we should get rid of the penny, and I wholeheartedly agree. Lincoln still has the fiver. But a commenter at Mankiw's blog asks some interesting process questions.

Does it mean that the government simply stops minting new pennies, and we are left to devise our own rules thereafter on an ad hoc basis?

Does it mean that the penny is no longer legal tender?

Does it mean that if the nickel is the smallest form of currency being minted, that people must round up or down? Or are they (merchants and/or individuals)allowed to use pennies when it is advantageous to not round off?

You would think that all merchants would simply set their prices at the nearest nickel, right? So there would be no need to round up or down? But then there's the sales tax problem in most states. But there is a way around that, too, of course. The merchant could set its prices so they would end up at the nearest nickel after tax.

Can you imagine how many jars full of pennies would be cashed in during the weeks before the penny expired as legal tender? My suggestion: the government should commission an artist to make some massive copper sculpture in D.C. out of all the old pennies.

Roses and Democracy Watch

heartbreaking.