Several people have linked to David Hogberg's "Libertarian Guide to Bush vs Kerry." DH says he isn't a complete libertarian, and I'll go over the issues again.
Abortion. DH gives this issue to Kerry for being more pro-choice. But there is no real philosophical libertarian stance on abortion. Libertarianism is about individual rights, but as a political philosophy it makes no determination on what counts as an individual. It happens that more libertarians think a fetus doesn't have rights, but plenty do. As the L.A. Times noted today, "Abortion is a stickier question among Libertarians, and Badnarik describes the party as split on the issue." So it depends on which Libertarian you ask. Advantage: Both
Taxes: This is perhaps the clearest winner for Bush. He cut taxes for everyone who pays income tax, and Kerry has plainly stated he wants to raise taxes for wealthier citizens. Advantage: Bush
Social Security: Yup, Bush wants to 'give' people individual accounts. It's sort of like having the choice between a jail cell with a view, or without. I guess we take the view. Advantage: Bush
Gay Marriage: Bush said he's not against civil unions! Anyone believe him? At least Kerry doesn't want to mess with the Constitution on this issue. Advantage: Kerry
Government Spending: HB says that Bush hasn't done well on spending, which is quite an understatement. Terrorism isn't the only serious issue in this election. We are quite capable of ruining the county without outside help, and Bush's expansion of the federal government can be seen only as highly destructive. Kerry isn't philosophically opposed to such expansion, but perhaps he won't be able to spend as freely. Advantage: Kerry
Health Care: Bush supported, and achieved, an enormous expansion of the federal government into the health care market. Bush has some pro-business reform ideas that may marginally help consumers. Kerry wants to get government even more involved in healthcare, and deny it as he might, he wants to get closer to a purely socialized healthcare system. What a couple of losers we have on this issue! Advantage: Bush (while retching and gagging)
Education: Again, Bush lead a huge federal expansion of spending and control over education. He also wants federal involvement in private schools with faith based initiatives and the like. Kerry wants to keep the current sytem, except to spend more on it. Advantage: A two way tie for last.
Affirmative Action: Bush talks a good talk about equal protection under the law, but talk is all it is. Kerry wants to defend favored groups affirmative action. Advantage: Neither
Minimum Wage: Kerry wants to raise minimum wage, Bush doesn't talk about it, but I don't doubt he would raise it if he thought he could gain a political advantage. Here's a dirty little secret even Libertarians don't talk about - this issue doesn't matter. Wages in almost all parts of the nation have been well above minimum wage for quite a while, so even if minimum wages are increased it will effect almost no one. Advantage: Neither
Tort Reform: DH notes that Bush suuports medical liability reform, but it's an error to give Bush the advantage on libertarian grounds. We are trying to level the playing field, not just tilt toward one side or the other. On the other hand, having Edwards on the ticket is almost enough to support Bush regardless of stated policy positions. Advantage: Neither
Energy: This one is exactly as DH says: "I can see little good in either of their plans. Both are big-government, incentive-laden, regulation-riddled garbage. This issue is a wash." Advantage: Neither
Welfare Reform: Bush supports some minor tweaking, but nothing notable. Kerry, well who knows. Advantage: Neither
Judicial Activism: Bush claims to want only "strict constructionists" on the bench. Which means we'll soon see an end to the drug war, the Patriot Act, IRS seizures without trials, and every other federal program not authorized by the Constitution.
If only.
Advantage: Neither
Environment: Kerry supports Clinton style wilderness designations, closing vast areas of the West to the general public.Bush might be too cozy with business, but at least we get some benefit from our public lands. Advantage: Bush
I really enjoyed Hogberg's list, as you can see by my imitation here, but I have to wonder about any (even small 'l') libertarian who doesn't look at these next issues - -
Drug War: Bush has continued the trampling of the Constitution under the guise of the drug war. The issue is on the back-burner of public awareness behind terrorism and the war, but it still effects people's daily lives. Incarceration rates are at record highs. Could Kerry be worse? Possibly. His record says there's not much he won't sacrifice for law and order. Advantage: Neither
Human Rights: Closely mirroring the drug war issue. The Bush administration has insisted that terrorists can be held without trial. Who is a terrorist? Anyone the administration says is is a terrorist. Remarkably, in his Senate career Kerry has been arguing for very similar government powers when it comes to law enforcement. Civil rights activists who expect Kerry to roll back the abuses of the Bush era will be sorely disappointed. See here, for instance. Advantage: Are you kidding?
The long history of the U.S. suggests that freedom as the primary political value is the most successful base for the country. Both of these candidates fail to appreciate this, as do most of our politicians. If we're to continue being a vibrant culture and economy it will be in spite of these two, not because of them.
I agree with you on a lot of this, but I don't see the tax issue so clearly. Not that Kerry has a chance here, but it shouldn't be such a slam dunk for Bush.
Personally, I don't think it should be called a tax cut if you're borrowing money. A tax deferral or a tax loan, perhaps.
It's just too easy to pander and give away a tax cut when you don't have to worry about spending cuts. Anybody can do that and let the next guy dig themselves out of it. And it's an insult to every state government that has to make those tough choices.
My actual tax BILL went down a few dollars, but it feels like my tax BURDEN went up significantly.
I don't think there's much connection between the tax cut and the deficit. The difference in federal income from year to year isn't as great as the increase in spending. In the long term, the feds might in fact get more income with the lower tax rates.
In other words, if there were no tax cuts we'd still have a big honkin' deficit.
"...and deny it as he might, he wants to get closer to a purely socialized healthcare system."
Do you have any cites for this assertion? How is it you know what he "wants"?
"Here's a dirty little secret even Libertarians don't talk about - this issue doesn't matter. Wages in almost all parts of the nation have been well above minimum wage for quite a while, so even if minimum wages are increased it will effect almost no one."
"Affect," not "effect."
Really?
That's an awful lot of "no one," even if you allow that a certain small percentage will lose jobs rather than be given a pay increase.And no matter how debatable the specific figures from EPI are, I don't understand how one can be unaware that millions of Americans are paid minimum wage, and many more just a dollar or two above.
"I don't think there's much connection between the tax cut and the deficit."
That's interesting, but it's not anything I've seen a single reputable economist, most particularly including plenty of staunch Republican former advisors to both Bushs and Reagan, say, unless they are currently employed by the administration. It also defies reason, given that a deficit is produced by spending more than income, that there's "not much connection" to it with income.
"In the long term, the feds might in fact get more income with the lower tax rates."
Yes, I definitely remember how Laffer and Reagan brought the deficit down that way. If only that damn liberal Democrat Clinton hadn't exploded spending and the deficit after that!
On some planet, anyway. :-)
Last one first, didn't federal receipts increase during the Reagan years? Similar to the current situation, spending was just rising faster than income. Income tax rates won't make much of a dent either way.
Kerry won't get his $7 minimum wage, not by April '06, anyway. If there is widespread support for raising it then it will happen regardless of which of these two are in office.
And Gary, you're hired as my editor. Pays the same as being a commenter, I'm afraid. Far below even the current minimum wage.
I'll happily settle for some nice, luxurious, rich, large, chocolaty, dessert you can buy me next time we meet, as my payment for the quarter year.
;-)
(If pleasing enough, for the half year! ;-))
Incidentally, nice to see you blogging more again, and the twins are simply lovely -- what a blessing, by any standard.
I couldn't have explained the topic better myself.