Kansas Libertarian Failure Hurting Republican Office Holders!

Nice attempt at deflection. If I was a conservative, I wouldn't want to talk about Kansas either.

Here's the difference, sport. Kansas has a republican governor with full republican majorities in both state houses. Kansas was proclaimed to be an experiment in right wing, trickle down economics. Massive tax cuts for the rich, restrictions on welfare, all the stuff right wingers think are economic magic bullets. The state is sinking fast.

Moody’s drops Kansas credit outlook from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’

S&P Drops Kansas Credit Rating, Citing Ongoing Budget Issues

Kansas' Never-Ending Budget Mess

They needed the Kansas supreme court to intervene to keep their schools open. Kansas is as good of an example of the failure of right wing economic policy as you're going to get.

 

Let's be specific.

The current Libertarian Party Platform, addresses the Income Tax and states:

Yes, the Libertarian Party does call for an end to income taxes but Libertarians are also Constitutionalists and pragmatic realists that know that unless another means of funding the US Government under the Constitution, or a new Amendment to replace the 16th Amendment is created and ratified there's no means of funding the necessary government of the United States. This is a statement in principle that the Libertarian Party is well aware of the fact that the income tax cannot be repealed today.

(Apportioned) "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" (authorized by Article I Section 8 http://constitution.findlaw.com/article1.html ) don't even come close to funding the necessary expenditures of Congress. A "Consumption (retail sales) Tax" such as the one proposed by FairTax.org is unconstitutional but could be authorized by a Constitutional Amendment. There's also the potential option for the Federal Government to "Tax the States" based upon apportionment and leave it up to the States to figure out how to come up with their annual payment to the Federal government. Neither of those two options are pragmatically going to happen.

Moving on to the Balanced Budget Amendment the Libertarian Party Platform does state:

Accepting the fact that the Income Taxes are pragmatically necessary to fund the government we don't actually require a Constitutional Amendment to ensure a balanced budget every year and I've made a proposal to the Income Tax laws that would fully fund the authorized expenditures and ALSO result in a dramatic reduction in the tax rate from 39.6% while ensuring a truly progressive tax rate below the top tax rate. No cuts to spending are required, the income tax rate is lowered by roughly 25%, and the budget is automatically balanced every year because the tax rate floats to ensure the funding.

On Free Trade the Libertarian Party Platform does call for elimination to impediments to free trade but you pulled the statement out of context.

As is obvious this is a statement about open immigration for peaceful purposes related to employment. It's about "free trade" related to labor as well as goods that cross international borders. Republicans are opposed to the Libertarian Open Borders advocated in this statement from the Libertarian Party Platform.

We can also look earlier in the opening statement to the Libertarian Party Platform where it states:

As noted here the Libertarian Party makes two statements. One is that the government should not violate individual rights and the second is that the government must protect individual rights. Some mistakenly believe that this is the same as the Republican Party that advocates very limited regulation of commerce but that's false because limited regulation fails to protect the rights of the person. Libertarians demand those regulations required for the protections of the natural rights of the person and we know that this is an area of failure by the federal government. We need more regulation of commerce if we're to protect the natural rights of the person as well as ensuring that there's no coercion, directly or indirectly, in the creation of voluntary contracts between people.

We need to understand that the core belief of the Libertarian Party is "Maximum personal and economic liberty" but we're failing as a nation to achieve this. A person that doesn't have the financial resources to "just say no" to employment that doesn't provide adequate compensation to meet their minimum-mandatory expenditures is "forced" into an employment contract (i.e. they take the job because they have to an it's not voluntary) and they have no economic liberty because they're basically economic slaves in our Capitalistic system as it currently exists. For that reason, as a Libertarian, I support a minimum "Living Wage" (compensation) law. No person would voluntarily work for less than it cost them to live but they're forced to because they can't afford to say no to the employment.

I also oppose our current "laws of property" that are a hold-over from the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings where "Title Establishes Ownership" which is juxtaposed to the "Natural Right of Property" as enumerated by John Locke. Under Locke's arguments no one literally "owns" anything but instead, through their personal labor, establishes the "Right to Use and Consume" what is necessary, and limited to, their "support and comfort" (Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt )

All of this is hugely different from the Republican economic and fiscal polices you falsely claim are Libertarian in origin. There is an ocean of difference between Libertarian and Republican economic and fiscal policies.

 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and reasoned response. You are literally the first and only Libertarian who I have ever encountered who has made a cogent argument for these positions and as such they deserve to be given some thought by me before I respond in any detail.

I do have one question which I would like to clarify up front so as to be certain that I understood what you are saying. In #4 you are stipulating a tax exemption for all income up to the median household income (MHI) and in #8 you are proposing a flat tax of all income above the MHI with the rate calculated upon actual expenditures by the government. Is my understanding of that correct?

 

Yes, you're correct. In principle I treat personal income the same as income from a business where "profits" are taxed and not "costs" for the household. An enterprise itemizes every expenditure but the household typically does not and our current "itemized deductions" are a corruption created by Congress so I've eliminated them. Median household income also as a correlation to the MIT calculated "Cost of Living" but it's not an exact relationship.

Using median income also simplifies calculating the actual tax rate for each year because we have a projected "gross personal income" (GPI) for each year as well as the projected "authorized expenditures" of the government. Take the GPI and divide it in half which gives you 50% of the "average income" that's actually more than the "median income" and then divide the "authorized general expenditures" by the "50% of GPI" to obtain the tax rate. Don't include Social Security/Medicare expenditures because those are funded by the FICA/Payroll/Self-Employment tax. This actually provides slightly more federal revenue that is required to balance the budget because it uses "average gross income" as opposed to the "median gross income" which is less.

This will probably achieve another Libertarian Party goal of eliminating the IRS because the personal income tax form becomes a very short form. Take gross personal income, subtract the Exemption, and if the remainder is a positive number then pay the tax rate on that number. The Treasury Department could handle this simplified form of taxation because there's never anything to really audit unless someone cheats by not filling out the correct gross income.

Of course questions on the tax proposal are best addressed on that thread.

There are a lot of other misunderstandings about the Libertarian Party's positions on many issues. The Libertarian Party is not the party of minimal government (like Republicans) but instead is the party of necessary government and there's a huge difference between the two. We're also pragmatic because we can have an "ideal" but know that pragmatically that we can only work towards that goal as opposed to snap our fingers and make it happen. For example we believe in personal liberty but also believe in personal responsibility so what do you do when people are irresponsible and it adversely effects other people?

Be careful though because a lot of people that claim to be Libertarians are either Republicans or anarchists and neither of those represent the Libertarian Party.

 

Um, no sir.That is how the government funded itself before Income tax was implemented.By the way,Income tax was only supposed to be around a year or two.
Give them an inch,they take a mile.

 

The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 so let's address the expenditure of government that existed then and now where it was funded by taxation based exclusively upon the provisions of Article I Section 8.

1913 Gross Federal Revenue: $11.7 billion
Adjusted for Inflation 2015: $285.03 billion

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/15/1913
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Not even an insane person would think that the US government could fund all of it's necessary expenditures with only $285.03 billion in revenue that would exist based upon the same taxes that existed in 1913 prior to the 16th Amendment and the adoption of the income tax.

Where the hell did this absurd idea originate? The United States never adopts any Constitutional Amendment based upon it only being necessary for two years. The 16th Amendment was ratified because the US government could not secure adequate revenue based exclusively upon the forms of taxation established in Article I Section 8. The 16th Amendment was a long term solution to the problem of the federal government securing adequate revenue to fund the necessary expenditures indefinitely into the future.

 

"This was to be a temporary two year tax supposedly authorized by Article 1 Section 8 clause 12 of the constitution which says that Congress has the power:

"To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer Term than two years"

http://freeyourmindonline.net/truthabouttax/

 

If I were a LW/Complex, I wouldn't want to talk about the other 49 states either. In fact, I'd do what OP did and plainly attempt to use Kansas as a solitary example to poopoo conservative fiscal policies generally, SAY SO right in the OP... then whine and complain dubiously, "It's about Kansas! It's about Kansas!" So transparent and fallacious, almost too easy. Eh, no I wouldn't do that, I like to smile when I look in the mirror, not avert my eyes.

Studies show that the "red state model" leads to far greater fiscal stability on average than the "blue state model." Of course union label op-eds don't think so, the facts do. Kansas is in the middle of the pack in fiscal health. The big blue model states, almost all near the bottom of the rankings in fiscal health.

Several states are governed even more conservatively than Kansas and doing great... according to the university study data... sport. (lol)

Oh look, it can use google and just plop links into the thread we've already seen and dealt with in prior posts. It thinks that's how adults discuss things. It's mistaken.

Kansas is ranked 27 in fiscal health. Cali, NY, Mass, Ill and Conn are ALL ranked below 40. Behind all the union label op-ed attacks, Kansas is doing just fine in context. Wish Cali, NY, Mass and ESPECIALLY Ill., the big, wasteful, union label, corrupt welfare blue states could say the same... but they can't.

 

There were numerous instances where the federal government imposed income taxes prior to 1913 and the ratification of the 16th Amendment. The difference being that the 16th Amendment established the income tax as a primary source of revenue for the federal government from 1913 to forever. It was pragmatically necessary because the demand for necessary expenditures of the federal government were going unfunded based upon the provisions in Article I Section 8.

As I previously documented the actual federal revenue in 1913 was minuscule by today's standards and the necessity for government, and the related costs, had expanded far beyond what the federal government could collect without the income tax.

We don't actually have a problem with a lack of income to fund the federal government. It's the nefarious political loopholes in our tax codes that results in deficit spending today. The greatest single problem is the special "capital gains tax" loophole that results in those with the greatest income paying about 1/2 the tax rates of the workers in America. A dollar of income is a dollar of income and the source of that income should not matter when it comes to taxation.

 

I am highly in favor of purging these economic illiterates from all levels of government. They screw up not just our legislatures but our bureaucracy as well. F'cking oxygen thieves. Glad Kansas made the right decision.

 

The real situation is that Kansas encompasses all of the Republican economic and fiscal policies and the results are reflective of the Republican economic and fiscal policies. It's been a disaster for Kansas and it wouldn't work any better at the national level.

 

First, thanks for posting the link from the Mercatus Center, George Mason University. I found the information fascinating, especially when clicking on individual states. You are correct, your link is solely about states ranking by fiscal condition. I don't think that is what the OP was getting at, based on the item contained in his linked ABC story. It was more about a populace and certain lawmakers getting a bit fed up with quality of life items - such as the results of the Kansas' Medicaid/Medicare program, once it was turned over to private entities by the Department of Health & Environment and named Kancare. This leads to quality of life issues as opposed to strictly fiscal issues. I have linked a CNBC item which compares states rankings by different categories, including quality of life. This sheet can be sorted to check all the various categories by state - just click on the quality of life column to sort the ranking by state. Very interesting in that the quality of life in this study is higher for Cali, NY, Mass, Conn and ILL than for Kansas. Even with Conn, for example, being in abysmal shape. I also understand that rankings of ths type can be quite subjective.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/americas-top-states-for-business-2016-the-list-and-ranking.html

 

Thank you, great link, I bookmarked it for further study.

 

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. And like Kansas, a big part of Illinois' problems is its relatively conservative social policies. Illinois is leaving about $500 million in net savings on the table by refusing to legalize and tax marijuana, for example. Police state policies in general are a giant drain on government finances.

Anyway, Kansas may not be doing great, but that does not prove Democrat policies are a better alternative. Illinois is a total mess, as are many places run by Democrats.

That is why Americans need third and fourth choices, because the two-party duopoly of Republicans and Democrats is suffocating the country.

 

Can't say I disagree here. They did decriminalize small amounts in IL recently, so that's a least a small step.

Illinois has a republican governor. Kansas is a great example because it's run entirely by republicans. There's really no comparison.

 

A very small step. But I was happy to hear it in any case.

Yes, but the Illinois legislature is and has been dominated by Democrats for decades. And to the extent Illinois has Republican governors, they are much less conservative in their approach than a Republican governor from a state like Texas, for example.

But I'm not sitting here telling you Kansas is a great way to run a state. I'm telling you (and the OP) that Kansas is not an example of libertarian ideology because the concept of "limited government" that libertarians generally advocate for is comprehensive in nature. That means you need much more than just some tax cuts in order to qualify as a libertarian.

I'm also telling you that Democrats have not proven they are viable alternative to the Republicans. Both parties are very bad governing and Americans need other options like libertarians and genuine progressives.

 

If you're a libertarian then you support the complete decriminalization of marijuana. If it's completely decriminalized then the person could grow their own because marijuana is easily grown even as a potted plant. There goes the tax revenues out the window. The only way there's tax revenues is if the government still makes the personal growing of marijuana a criminal offense.

There is of course the savings in government expenditures by decriminalization because badly needed law enforcement expenditures are being wasted on a non-toxic substance that is not harmful to society.

 

Actually, I support its complete legalization. Decriminalization simply means it's no longer punishable by prison, but you can still be fined for possession.

 

If you're the incumbent, it's the same thing. Evidently you seem to be the one having a problem understanding that.

 

What evidence do you have that the people who won the primaries aren't in favor of Kansas existing fiscal policies

Maybe it's the fact that moderates won the primaries and repudiated the disastrous Tea Party policies. And of course all those recently elected Tea Party clowns were voted out.

 

Have you seen what comes out of Bruce Rauner's mouth? He may not play up to the religious whackjobs like in Texas, but he's as conservative as they come.

 

This thread still going? OK.

So the CNBC (we'll call it a study) ALSO ranks Kansas in the middle of the pack, and -above- the blue state model states Cali, Conn and NY in a score derived from TEN factors listed right in your link, yet we are to IGNORE nine of the factors and give credence to only -one- of them, a NEBULOUS ONE at that, that ranks blue model states above Kansas?

How about NO THANKS!

Considering all ten factors in your own source, Kansas ranks above the big blue model states. No surprise there, and so your source, in context, plainly counts against the OP premise.

And as for the nebulous "quality of life" factor? Every ranking I've ever seen originating from a large population media hub gives more weight to big city QOL factors than rural. No surprise there either. I lived in Manhattan for six years. It was nice to not need a car and be close to museums and Central Park. What wasn't nice was constant construction noise -everywhere-, crack whores howling outside at night, and 16 hour work days to remain "competitive" with the other racing rats. I'll take the inconvenience of having and tending a car, peace and quiet, and sane work conditions where I am now over city life. Others wouldn't/don't, and that's their subjective preference. Point is of all the ten factors, QOL is far and away the most subjective, and any attempted objectifying of it in error.

- - - Updated - - -

You should study it, because it proves your thread premise incorrect in the same way the mercatus study does.

 

Says you. Could be true... or not. This is an easy claim to back, yet it hasn't been at all. Which candidates lost? to whom? and did "whom" run on repealing Kansas tax or government cuts, or were there other material reasons the incumbents lost in the primaries? This should have been in the OP, yet here we are 100 posts later...

Typical LW thread on PF. The general claim that "libertarian" policies are bad... just look at Kansas, has been debunked semantically (Kansas is -not- governed in accordance with libertarian policies as a matter of irrefutable fact), has been debunked by data in a university study on state fiscal health ranking Kansas in the middle and above the "big blue state model" states, add the CNBC "study" which ALSO ranks Kansas middle of the pack and ABOVE the big blue state models, and stick a fork... yet the thread drags on and on.

The other claim in the OP, that the mere loss of primaries without more simply must be a repudiation of "libertarian" or TP policies was never adequately evidenced, or even evidenced at all... yet the thread drags on and on without that...

Fail.

 

Your fallacious opinion has already been debunked.

Have a nice day.

- - - Updated - - -

Inability to read and/or comprehend the facts provided in the OP are not my problem.

 

No let the locals take care of it. It was done that way for quite a long time.