(MONDAY, OCTOBER 16 — Even though this diary has been up for a while, I’m bumping it to the front in the hopes of renewing and expanding the discussion. It’s a good one. – promoted by odum)

I’ve always had a bit of a problem with Libertarians, kind of the same I have with ideological Socialists; their world view doesn’t seem to take into account human nature or the way the world really works. Now, I am in total agreement with social libertarianism, it’s just the economic part I’ve had a problem with, because it goes under the assumption that the free markets will somehow do the right thing if left unhindered by regulation. We don’t need a USDA; selling bad meat is bad business, so they won’t do it, or so the (il)logic goes. Somehow, I wouldn’t find that comforting when I get E. coli from that uninspected hamburger.  I think that’s starting to change, as corporations now find themselves having more power than governments.

Markos, of Daily Kos fame, wrote the featured essay at the op-ed website of the libertarian think-tank the Cato Institute, called ‘The Case for the Libertarian Democrat’. In it, he lays out a compelling case for libertarian support of the Democratic party, as the Republicans have abandoned much of what libertarians hold dear, and represent a great threat to freedom, and are too in bed with the corporations to offer any kind of protection from abuses of power. There’s too many good points in the article to paraphrase here, so just go check it out here.

Even more refreshing than Kos’ commentary is Harold Meyerson’s commentary that is a response to Kos, called, ‘Democrats, Liberals, and Libertarians.’ He makes the telling point of Kos’ idea being ‘libertarianism for the real world’:

..and more particularly in 21st-century America, encroachments on privacy, personal security, and the environment are as likely, if not more likely, to come from business as they are from the state, and these are threats that require state regulation if they’re to be mitigated or dispelled…

…To argue, as a classic libertarian might, that a consumer is as free to switch banks as a bank is to sell its data neglects to note that a bank that doesn’t sell its data is at a competitive disadvantage with one that does, and a consumer who can’t find a privacy-protecting bank is simply out of luck. In short, the free play of markets can be a threat to individual freedom, unless individual freedom is a term that applies only to businesses and not to their consumers or employees or the people who must breathe their pollutants. This is something that New Deal liberals and social democrats have long understood and sought to redress. Indeed, the central insight of 20th century liberalism was that freedoms conflict, that a company’s freedom to dominate the marketplace was often in conflict with a consumer’s freedom to find a product at a fair price, or a worker’s freedom to find a decent job or form a union, or a citizen’s freedom to have an equal voice in the legislative process. And that to establish some parity of freedoms, the state had to take a hand…

…In short, as the balance of forces in capitalism shifts entirely towards investors and executives and away from employees, the need for a state that takes the burden of economic and health security off employers who won’t pick it up and employees who can’t pick it up is increasingly urgent. It’s hard to predict what exactly the tipping point will be as our private-sector welfare state continues to contract. But at some point, the Democrats will embrace a decisively larger role for the state in these matters because the public will demand it—not because the public will suddenly identify itself as liberal, but because there will be nowhere else to turn. And at that moment, I think even the Mountain State neo-libertarians will go along. After all, the New Deal didn’t arise because Americans suddenly awakened and proclaimed themselves progressive. It arose because the unchecked power and unregulated practices of major corporations and banks and the market itself led to an economic disaster.

Admittedly, Meyerson is no dyed-in-the-wool-Cato-fellow, he’s a bit of a lefty, but damn it, he makes sense. Especially to me. I’m not in favor of some big nanny-state government; I don’t believe that just because you’re an American, you’re entitled to a good life. But the tough-shit-you’re-on-your-own mentality of many Repubs and Libertarians doesn’t work for me either. What we’re talking about here falls somewhere in between.

you can read more of J.D. Ryan’s writings at Five Before Chaos.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, former Clinton staffer and head of the DCCC just can’t let an opportunity go by without insulting or smearing Howard Dean. Never mind that we’re less than four weeks from Election Day and petty infighting and backstabbing is even less appropriate now than it is in general. It sticks in his ego so badly that Dean’s “50 state strategy” has the support of the Dem rank-and-file that he doesn’t even bother pretending to contain his infantile petulance. What a prick. Click here to give him a piece of your mind.

So, the Vermont media is definitely working on what Freyne is now calling “porngate” – that is, the allegations that Martha Rainville covered up an illegal porno film made by Guard members (including, possibly some high-profile names?). How do I know? Cause I got a call today from a member of our local fourth estate to ask me about a rumor that’s been circulating that I have a copy of the..er, “piece”… myself. For the record I don’t… but I’m not sure what to think about this rumor that I do… (“Hey, ya hear about this Guard porno tape? Yeah, I bet ODUM’s got a copy..”). FYI: If you haven’t yet, click the link above and check out Freyne’s transcript of the Rainville press conference where she was grilled on this. She doesn’t hold up too well…

The cover story of this week’s Seven Days, concerning the limited (but not insignificant) Defense Department contracts brought into Vermont by Senator Patrick Leahy is a truly interesting, fair, and thought-provoking read. Do we want those contracts? What about the jobs they create? Is there a difference between the contracts for making body armor and mobile hospitals vs missiles? It’s fuzzy enough that even the Progressive quoted, Rep. Winston Dowland in the Northeast Kingdom says:

“I don’t agree with this war, but I agree that we need to keep buying this stuff,” Dowland says. “People are just interested in making a living and trying to feed their families.”

I’m still working out my feelings on the whole business (besides the general queasiness), but I’d be very curious to hear the views of others. Please post away…

…and the day after I start ads on the site, Baruth comes out with an indictment of national liberal blogs with corporate ads run amok. Yeesh. Great timing, Philip. Thanks for that. Just to make GMD look worse, this dynamic google-ad-thing that I have on my site has stuck up ads for John McCain and George Allen! Hyarrrrgh!! Tell you what – it’s part of the user agreement that I promise not to explicitly encourage people to click on any ads…but they didn’t say anything about explicitly encouraging them to avoid an ad like the plague. Please don’t click on Republican ads. There was also a Hillary Clinton one – that one I’ll (shudder) leave to your better judgment, gentle readers… but I don’t wanna know if you go there, deal?

( – promoted by odum)

The Republicans in charge of our federal government have spent the past six years in their own world. The result has been a twisting of reality that has cost lives and caused suffering in this country and around the world. It is time to demand a change not only in the culture of our federal government, but a change in our spending priorities.

Our President has taken to lying to us. In a recent series of campaign stops, he accused Democrats of not wanting to intercept the conversations of terrorists and accused them of wanting to wait until we are attacked to deal with terrorists.
You would think that Democrats are worse than terrorists.
Perhaps to him, they are.
He is the leader of the party also in charge of the House and Senate. Under their combined leadership the world has become more unstable and its people more fearful.
These leaders have taken a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit. They have turned the overwhelming support of the world in the aftermath of 9/11 into an almost global derision of our beliefs and policies.
These are the same people who continue to mismanage the war in Iraq.
The same people who deny global warming exists and refuse to increase auto mileage standards.
The same people who promote a system of lobbyists who draft legislation and pay for our bloated election system.
The same people who served huge tax breaks to the wealthiest among us in the face of abject poverty and widening disparities in income
The same people who brought us the absurdity of Bill Clinton’s impeachment and the fight to “save” Terri Schiavo.
The same people who deliver government resources to special interests in the form of no-bid contracts and earmarks to special interest groups.
The same people who have created a culture that supports people like disgraced Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned amid a flurry of emails where he was soliciting Congressional pages.
It is time for a change.
We need to create a sensible government by demanding a higher standard from our elected officials. Ending the lying and criminal behavior is obvious. We have to go farther to address our budget priorities and insist politicians keep their hands out of the cookie jar, even if we have to give up our own pet projects in the bargain.
It is hard to argue against a bridge in Alaska when we happily accept federal dollars for a recreation path.
Everyone from business leaders to government officials to homeowners thinks taxes are too high. We struggle with choosing between several under-funded programs while the least fortunate among us do without.
What we need is lower taxes and more money for social programs.
A group of legislators introduced a bill in the U.S. House in March of 2006 called the Common Sense Budget Act of 2006. The program spearheaded by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities calls for eliminating $60 billion in defense spending.
It is a drop in the bucket. Half of our annual discretionary spending, $440 billion, goes to the Pentagon, much of it for out-dated, cold war programs that do little more than prop up an incumbent.
That doesn’t include the billions we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By comparison, the federal government spends $40 billion dollars on K to 12 education, $1 billion on world hunger and $50 billion on children’s health care. We spend $2.5 billion on energy independence and renewables. (See www.sensiblepriorities.org)
Imagine if $60 billion a year in useless military spending was used for health care, combating global warming and improving education. The influx in local spending would lower taxes while improving lives. It would stimulate the economy while solving a host of social problems.
A Democratic leadership may remove the worst of the Republican guard from power and given enough time may undo some of the worst that has been committed in the last six years. However, most Democrats are not talking about reordering our spending priorities.
Most of them have not signed on to the Common Sense Budget Act. Not Sen. Leahy, not Jim Jeffords, not Bernie Sanders and certainly not any Republican candidate.
We know of only one Vermont politician who understands that reducing unnecessary Pentagon spending could make all the difference in the world.
Peter Welch.
Welch has spent decades serving Vermont and understands the issues. He supports universal access to health care, actively reducing global warming, improving education and how we fund it and a sense of fiscal responsibility.
Vermont would be well served by electing him serve in Washington.