Kasich is a great guy to hang out with and a courageous politician -- maybe that's why he walked away. But there's a few cheap shots in is prescription. Even if we did everything on his list, it wouldn't balance the budget -- he's just identified the politically saleable cuts.
And some of them are pretty off base. "Cut foreign aid" is always a winner back in the district (them furriners don't vote, so cut THEIR entitlements) but it's badly shortsighted. When the U.S. isn't in there building schools, roads, clinics, etc. in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Vietnam, the Saudi Wahabists and the Chinese are there doing it instead. We knew the value of this kind of thing when we were fighting the Soviets -- why do we now think differently?
Aside from the moral and ideological problems with this position, there's the practical one -- after you cut out aid to Israel and Egypt that flows from the Camp David accords and other Middle East Peace initiatives, you're left with only a few billion in foreign aid dollars spread over a wide range of countries. Cut the entire thing -- eliminate all U.S. international aid -- and you reduce the deficit (not the debt, the DEFICIT) by less than one percent. Seems pretty cost-ineffective.
The problem with the U.S. budget at this point is politically driven defense policies (Congressionally mandated bases and weapons programs) and middle-class entitlements along with a tax system that starts to break down when it gets to the very rich. If we could fix the system -- distribute taxes fairly, rationalize the military's procurement and basing, and refocus "government assistance" on those who actually need it rather than those who fit a certain demographic, we could get ourselves back in the black in a hurry.
Odds of Michael Jackson replacing Dick Cheney are better, though.
Yeah, institute a flat tax and you instantly save the salaries of 90% of the IRS, eliminate tax loopholes for businesses and the rich, increase reporting of taxable income, and destroy social engineering through taxation all with the stroke of a pen.
But it would also rob Congress of the campaign contributions they recieve in exchange for perks in the tax code...ain't never gonna happen.
I'm new to this blog, so I'm not quite sure what the blogger's opinion is on this. Like many libertarian bloggers I seem to remember a remark that he voted in one Republican primary specifically to vote against John McCain. While this is obviously a case of 20-20 hindsight, it seems to me that he was the best of the electable candidates from a libertarian perspective. Although no one can tell what he would have done had he been elected president, I think it's fair to say that he would have exercised much greater fiscal restraint than our current president. From what I can gather, it seems to me that the libertarian community's main objection to McCain was campaign finance reform. Is this assessment correct? If so, and given that GWB has wimped out when it comes to opposing any big-government initiative, does anyone regret not supportiung McCain in 2000 (obviously assuming that my understanding of the libertarian/Vodka Pundit position on this matter is correct).
[W]here are tomorrow's leaders, those few good men and women willing to fight with passion and stand on principle to make a difference for the next generation?
Hmm, sounds like somebody's considering answering that question in 2008, no?
