Days of Change

Day 1198 – Democrats with Lower Taxes

February 15, 2012
1 Comment

One thing taking a major beating this year is the social conservative. The media has apparently decided that gay people should be married, married people should avoid pregnancy and everyone should play the field before they make either decision. The leadership (or establishment, if you will) of the Republican Party seems to agree. Christian conservatives haven’t been filling the RNC collection plate like they did in the 80s. The wealthy businessmen have. They’ve made the Democratic Party less populist and the Republican Party less moral. The GOP, for the most part, are now Democrats who think taxes should be lower.

I happen to believe in the free market. If capitalism didn’t work and government intervention did, there wouldn’t be a multibillion dollar pornography industry and there wouldn’t be any bars or liquor stores in this country. Art Laffer reveals that there is some limit to taxation before revenue decreases and Kurt Hauser has shown that regardless of tax rates, 19% is the maximum portion of GDP the government ever gets in revenue. If you truly believe that tax cuts stimulate growth while having a minimal effect on federal revenue, or even increasing it, you can dismiss the argument that tax cuts have to be “paid for” with other taxes. If you do believe tax cuts have to be paid for, you are not a supply-sider and you should stop talking about tax cuts in a recession.

It ends up being much the same way with morality. Since 1973, the abortion debate has become intensely political. Democrats have been nearly unanimous in being pro-choice (except for a few like Harry Reid, who never talks about being pro-life) while Republicans have routinely run candidates who are pro-choice while keeping anti-abortion language in their platform. The public is split. Most people are pro-choice in the first trimester, pro-life in the third and uncomfortable talking about pregnancies in the second trimester. It comes down to three questions. How much autonomy does a woman have? How much right to life does a fetus have? When can those rights be asserted during gestation? If a candidate doesn’t have an answer to those questions, they might as well say nothing.

The trend towards liberal libertarianism have produced a lot of “live and let live” types who see no point in dictating to other people. For the most part, that may be a good idea. Still, why is the state interfering in anything? Why should the government grant marriages if most end in divorce and an increasing number of births are out-of-wedlock. There is no societal advantage to marriage in this situation. I think politicians should involve themselves in moral issues in as much as it corresponds to Pascal’s Wager. If the moral position is better, fight for it. Otherwise, shut up about it.

I don’t know what this election is about anymore. We have an idiot. We have a corporate raider who wants to open the books on America’s finances. We have a career politician. We have an anti-government loon and we have a guy who gives lip-service to economic liberty because he thinks everyone will laugh at his moral stance. It’s the Seinfeld of elections, a campaign about nothing.


Posted in Uncategorized

    2016 Polls

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 15 other followers