Wednesday, April 15, 2015

SAY IT LOUD.

I've been saying that the essence of libertarianism is the elevation of "them that has, gets" to the level of holy gospel, and hey, here comes David Boaz of the Cato Institute to prove it. Boaz likes those check-off boxes that let you devote a few bucks of your taxes to different funds and wonders, why can't the whole thing be like that?
Why not take this one step further? Why shouldn’t taxpayers make direct decisions about how much money they want to spend on other government programs, like paying off the national debt, the war in Iraq or the National Endowment for the Arts? This would force the federal government to focus time and resources on projects citizens actually want, not just efforts that appeal to special interests.
They're all "a republic, not a democracy" until it comes to money -- and of course Boaz isn't for letting the moochers use the tax system to loot the makers (as they do now -- ask Mitt Romney!), but rather for the makers with the most bucks to decide what services will be available to the little people:
Entitlements would be the biggest problem. About 60 percent of the federal budget now goes to entitlement programs. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 20 percent of spending, and most of that comes from general revenues. Should taxpayers be able to withhold their hard-earned dollars from such programs? In a free society, they should. So how do we handle a shortage of funding? Congress could change the spending parameters to fit what the taxpayers are willing to supply.
The more money you have, the more dollar-votes you have on this. Like it is now, in other words -- but with no need for subterfuge, because that's the difference between libertarians and conservatives: Libertarians don't feel shame, so there's no need to be sneaky about it. (h/t Brent Cox.)

206 comments:

  1. susanoftexas11:55 AM

    And why shouldn't we be able to sell people? It would solve so many poverty problems and the producers could open new markets in organ selling, sex slavery and child labor.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ted the slacker11:58 AM

    "This would force the federal government to focus time and resources on projects citizens actually want, not just efforts that appeal to special interests."
    What happens if no-one checks the box labeled: "Funding the army of accountants and auditors and IRS sleuths needed to administer this insanely stupid system"?
    Anyway, this is your typical libertarian "solution", something that will often end up costing more than the "problem" they are trying to fix. I guess freedom isn't free or something something argle bargle.

    ReplyDelete
  3. it'd work up until the Pentagon only got $50 million a year, at which point the Libertarians would suddenly support coercion in this one oh-so-important area.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Median N. Mean11:59 AM

    Ha ha, yes, liberals are fools for spending money on wasteful programs that save peoples lives through medical procedures. True conservatives know the best way to save American lives is to take the lives of others through military spending.

    The depths of their inhumanity -- and the levels it is accepted a pole in the debate -- still shocks me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thoughts as I read this:

    1.) This guy isn't even pretending that he wants anything other than a neo-feudal system.

    2.) Aren't these the same assholes who keep going on about how our tax system is too complicated? Wouldn't this make it way worse?

    3.) In light of recent events, the prospect of wealthy local interests creating a police force accountable only to them should trouble a libertarian. But those people were mostly blahs, and it's not like they donate to Cato.

    4.) And extending on that, it seems like this would actually kill democracy by ensuring that most people would have little or no say over the laws they have to live under. But again: Neo-feudalism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Median N. Mean12:00 PM

    There would be football stadium building boom that would rival the manufactuing effort of World War 2.

    ReplyDelete
  7. They usually say similar things about foreign aid - Actual amount, <1%; Typical voter estimate, around 10%. People go with their gut, and their gut lies to them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Median N. Mean12:04 PM

    NPR, foreign aid, and studies on duck mating and obesity in lesbians, account for fully half of federal spending. No wonder, "get rid of government fraud and abuse" is still brought up as a way to cut the budget.

    ReplyDelete
  9. kennyg12:06 PM

    From teh comments :
    Dear Washington Post editors,

    Please remove $0.15 off my my monthly subscription. In return, I would like you to remove any op-eds that amount to demagoguery, supported by half baked arguments. I'm sure you'll know which ones I'm referring to.

    Sincerely,
    Broprah Winfrey

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gosh, I don't need to check this box labled "CDC"; there hasn't been any outbreaks of Ebola lately!

    DERP.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Median N. Mean12:07 PM

    Why should *I* have to pay for the government to collect *your* taxes? I make $20,000 a year and the IRS can process my forms in under 3 seconds. Damned if I'm going to subsidize the review of Mitt Romney's no doubt encyclopedic compendium of forms and write-offs.

    Liberty!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Throw in funding for CRAZY OFFENSIVE modern art exhibits and you're well over 60%.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Median N. Mean12:08 PM

    That's why we need the line-item veto.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Surely the fact that I cannot sell my left kidney for a case of whiskey is evidence of my lack of freedom in this jackbooted government tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brother Yam12:09 PM

    Libertarians don't feel shame

    Neither do scorpions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jay B.12:09 PM

    About 60 percent of the federal budget now goes to entitlement programs. Neat slight-of-hand! I wonder how much the paid-for Social Security system, which has nothing to do with income tax or deficits or the debt accounts for that 60%? IT'S A FUCKING MYSTERY I TELLS YA. And, of course, if the government already spends 20 percent on health care to make sure people don't have to die, it would be an even better argument to spend more and cover everyone, than rely on the decency of people to screw over the poor and the elderly on their tax forms.

    ReplyDelete
  17. DN Nation12:09 PM

    Owns.

    ReplyDelete
  18. susanoftexas12:09 PM

    Or someone else's kidney.

    ReplyDelete
  19. mortimer200012:10 PM

    The more money you have, the more dollar-votes you have on this.

    I suggested this very thing 4 years ago on this American "Thinker" thread. Clearly, my prescient putrescence is finally going to be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  20. susanoftexas12:10 PM

    "You knew what I am."

    ReplyDelete
  21. Median N. Mean12:11 PM

    Maybe our national emblem should be a frog instead of an eagle.

    ReplyDelete
  22. M. Krebs12:11 PM

    Does anyone know who exactly was the first asshole to use the word "entitlements" in reference to Medicare, Social Security, etc?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hmmmm...

    coercively or non-?

    *sharpens scalpel*

    Just asking for a friend, mind you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. But that's just part of the overall budget allocated to the cultural pogrom against old white Christian bigots.
    That brings it solidly into the 70%s, and I think a full accounting would bring it right up to about 82%.

    ReplyDelete
  25. coozledad12:12 PM

    Should taxpayers be able to withhold their hard-earned dollars from such programs? In a free society, they should.



    Intriguing idea. But capital gains should be taxed at Eisenhower era rates, at the very least.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Median N. Mean12:12 PM

    Probably FDR. An entitlement is something you're entitled to, like clean water. After decades of Republican propaganda, this now seems petty of us to expect.

    ReplyDelete
  27. carolannie12:15 PM

    Medicare, medicare. lessee, that's what I pay for through my payroll taxes. Hmmm. Why should the Makers get to tell me what they want to do with my taxes?
    I know we currently subsidize Medicare because it has been underfunded and some Drs get to drive MBs, but still

    ReplyDelete
  28. M. Krebs12:16 PM

    Yeah, I guess it wasn't always derogatory.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This all makes perfect sense once you understand that 60% of the budget goes to entitlements, another 50% goes to welfare, about 76% goes to foreign aid, with another 115% going to food stamps. Now, if we can just start chipping away at the 80% that goes to disability cheats, and maybe take a chunk out of the 40% that goes to those layabout retirees, we could really make progress on whittling down the tax bills of billionaires.

    Defense? Only accounts of a fraction of a percent of federal spending, so it needs to be at least doubled, if not tripled.

    ReplyDelete
  30. susanoftexas12:19 PM

    The great thing is that it doesn't matter either way. Poverty will do the coercing for you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Neo-feudalism is not a problem for libertarians because each and every one of them will be royalty. Like the woman I used to work with who is an extreme libertarian. She's currently working part-time for minimum wage, which is just barely enough to keep her single-wide trailer in heat and electricity. But man! In the libertarian paradise, she's going to be on top!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Exactly! These people are not free!
    It's a tragedy, I tells ya!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sadly, this is especially coming true of clean water. In modern American, nobody is "entitled" to anything they can't pay for, and that includes clean water. (The Koch brothers are also working on a program to make sure the air is so dirty you can't breathe it, but that's gonna take a few more years.)

    ReplyDelete
  34. mortimer200012:25 PM

    I think I remember reading that the word originally meant something like "having a legal claim or right to funds, property, or privilege." Social security is an entitlement in that sense because it is legislated by Congress that workers who pay into it have a legal claim to the benefit. The meaning from the legalese has been subverted by a completely opposite pejorative idea that an entitlement is something that moochers don't deserve and have no right to.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I wonder if my mother still has this. I might need it ere long.
    http://www.historylink.org/db_images/Snohomish_29_fergusonCanOfAir1962WorldsFair.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  36. *shhhhhhhhh* - the environment we live in. Carbon dioxide,
    fluorocarbons, and methane have increased since 1958. Earth is being
    acclimatized. They are turning our atmosphere into their atmos- *shhhhhhhhhhhhh*

    ReplyDelete
  37. Global warming--it's . . . it's a cook book!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anyone seen my copy of Hans Herman Hoppe's book?

    ReplyDelete
  39. M. Krebs12:34 PM

    What I was getting at was when did it get twisted into a pejorative? Does it predate Reagan? Goldwater?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'd think you were kidding, but this is the same pair that dumped tons of money into a campaign in Tennessee to convince the local wingnuts that a broadly popular mass transit proposal was a SOSHULIST plot, so who the hell knows.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Have you seen some of the bonkers high school stadiums these days?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sounds like something post-Reagan. Probably part of Gingrich's "language project".

    ReplyDelete
  43. The shoes...needed to fully anthropomorphize the bird so that people know, "hey, this natural air is for people" or an artist who thinks bird feet are tough to draw?

    ReplyDelete
  44. randomworker12:40 PM

    That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard! I am just shaking my head. Who is this idiot and why does he have a job?

    ReplyDelete
  45. People feet are tough enough to draw, much less bird feet, but I'm voting for anthromorphization.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hmm, well that was supposed to go...somewhere else. With the neo-feudalism stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Marion in Savannah12:50 PM

    So I guess that fuckwit is planning on never getting old or sick...

    ReplyDelete
  48. We will not be free until Goldman Sachs and Citibank can set up the "Kidney Exchange™³²®©!!!"

    Buy 'em, sell 'em, rent 'em, short 'em. One stop for all your needs!
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pete Peterson, as early as 1981?

    Quick google doesn't confirm, but I remember that at least.
    ~

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gromet1:09 PM

    "You guys, I have a great plan to collapse civilization. I think we could do it in a single April 15."

    ReplyDelete
  51. BigHank531:09 PM

    The Kochs are Bircher fundamentalists. They probably think the interstate highway system is socialism, too.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I've often wished wistfully that American tax payers could allot some of their taxes to programs they favored. With me it would be NASA, but the EPA might collect a nice dividend, and just think what the Weather service would get! I thought it would be a fun little experiment in the "no such thing as failed research" point of view
    .


    Conservative-Libertarians can turn any idea into their twisted "survival of the fittest" credo.

    ReplyDelete
  53. zencomix1:15 PM

    I would like to wholeheartedly embrace the new Libertarian tax restructuring as soon as I can check off the box that says "My body is a temple and and churches don't pay taxes.", and get a full refund.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Socialist Cubone1:17 PM

    [blockquote]This would force the federal government to focus time and resources on projects citizens actually want, not just efforts that appeal to special interests.[/blockquote]


    What an unintentionally revealing way to formulate the categories of "citizen" and "special interest"

    ReplyDelete
  55. tigrismus1:22 PM

    As a garnish, maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Awww, Mommmmm!

    Objectivist jerky, again?

    ReplyDelete
  57. redoubtagain1:24 PM

    (And when, inevitably, Goldman Sachs and Citibank have to be bailed out when the Kidney Exchange [KIDEX] fails, they'll be able to blame it on all those low-income minority kidneys they were forced to buy and sell and that clogged up the market.)

    ReplyDelete
  58. redoubtagain1:32 PM

    Probably. ('Cause nothing's more entitled than Conservative White Guys.)

    ReplyDelete
  59. M. Krebs1:32 PM

    Holy shit, this Boaz guy has been fucking this chicken at Cato since at least 1982:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html

    People around the country seem to understand what no one in Washington will admit: The budget is out of control. The growth of government is out of control. We seem to have lost our perspective in the last 20 years, as government has taken on more and more functions, and members of Congress have made more of the budget "uncontrollable" in an attempt to absolve themselves of blame for its growth. The program proposed in this paper is not just a list of budget cuts. It is something that needs to be done to solve our national crisis.
    ...
    It might seem surprising that so much of the federal budget would go to the poor -- politically powerless as they are. The answer, of course, is that most of it doesn't. Many of the recipients of transfer payments are not poor. The largest programs, social security and Medicare, go to the elderly at all income levels, a group noted more for high voter turnout than for poverty.

    ...
    It might seem surprising that so much of the federal budget would go to the poor -- politically powerless as they are. The answer, of course, is that most of it doesn't. Many of the recipients of transfer payments are not poor. The largest programs, social security and Medicare, go to the elderly at all income levels, a group noted more for high voter turnout than for poverty.

    Then he gives away the game at the very end:

    The third and probably most important reason to support budget cuts is more sweeping. The total impact of government on society is not measured just by taxes and spending. Indeed, some cynics have suggested that Americans would be better off if the government simply taxed them at the present level and then burned the money, or spent it on personal consumption for the members of Congress. Instead, government spends the money in a myriad of ways, all designed to force or encourage society in a particular direction. The programs suggested for cutting do the following: subsidize ineffi- cient businesses at the expense of those that satisfy consumers, narrow consumer choice, increase consumer prices, violate the personal liberties of Americans, restrict the First Amendment, allocate resources to the uses favored by special interests, protect businesses from the need to assume responsibility for their actions, encourage the overuse and misuse of natural resources, stifle the development of consumer-oriented technologies, discriminate against unskilled and minority workers, create unemployment, nationalize and centralize countless activities better served by diversity, create an intergenerational cycle of poverty and dedendency, freeze the poor out of the economic system, involve the United States in foreign conflicts, and increase the risk of nuclear war.

    Even if all those "services" were provided free, we would be better off without them. And that is the final point of this paper: Aside from the obvious savings in taxes, government spending, and deficits, America would be better off without many or most of the functions the federal government currently undertakes. This analysis offers a guide to identifying those functions and, hopefully, to eliminating them.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Lordwhorfin1:33 PM

    Cos it's totes not coercive if the MARKET dictates your (kidney's) place in (Dick Cheney) the Great Chain of Being!

    ReplyDelete
  61. varmintito1:36 PM

    This made me curious, so I looked up the estimated cost of the Iraq war. It pointed to me to an exhaustive study published in 2013 by a team of researchers at Rutgers, which concluded that the total cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan amounted to 3.7 trillion (this includes the estimated future cost of medical treatment for veterans of those wars).
    The I divided that by the estimated population of the US in 2014 (318 million).
    The result is that those wars approximately $11,650 per person.
    Even if you think those wars provided you personally, or society generally, some benefit, how does it measure up.
    If you are part of a four person family, would you rather have those wars, or would you rather have $46,600.
    Myself, I only had a family of three. Until this Cato jerkoff personally hands me a check for $34,950 he should be shutting the cake hole about making life miserable for this country's poor, sick and old people.

    ReplyDelete
  62. waspuppet1:40 PM

    Test questions for David Boaz:

    1) How is this substantially different from letting only white male property-owners vote?

    2) Do you think letting only white male property-owners vote is a good idea? Show your work on this one.

    3) Have you ever considered the possibility that there's a reason your idea is not in operation, given that one very much like it used to be?

    4) What are the chances that your idea will ever be proposed, considered or enacted?

    5) Given that (spoiler alert) the correct answer for Question #4 is "zero," how has your commentary contributed to the overall good of the nation, or of any individual person in it?

    6) How much money are you paid?

    Extra credit: Do you even understand the point I'm making here?

    ReplyDelete
  63. protect businesses from the need to assume responsibility for their actions

    Haw haw, the FUCKING IRONY.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Gosh, I can't IMAGINE what Mom and I could possibly do with $11K each, given that we're such poverty lucky duckies.

    Snerk.

    ReplyDelete
  65. gosh, not sure how my autocorrect messed that up. I meant to say "...against Real Americans".

    ReplyDelete
  66. petesh1:45 PM

    Filet mignon, right?

    ReplyDelete
  67. M. Krebs1:45 PM

    Ha! Everything old is new again. This is from a 1994 screed from the "National Center for Policy Analysis:"

    Proposal A: Competition and Choice.
    Proposal A involves partial privatization of public charity. Under the proposal, individuals would be able to allocate up to 20 percent of their per-
    sonal federal income taxes to qualified private charities and then deduct the 20
    percent from their total income tax payments. Alternatively, individuals could
    instruct the U.S. Treasury (on their income tax returns) to pay up to 20 percent of their taxes to specific private charities. Such private charity allocations
    would be deducted from the federal government's poverty budget. In other
    words, for each tax dollar allocated to private sector charity, public sector
    charity would be reduced by a dollar.

    ReplyDelete
  68. No, I think Boaz is fit for only ground chuck at best, with LOTS of ketchup.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Gives a lot away that he considers social spending "public sector charity".

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hmmm, I guess I need to pick a cause as even with loose rules they might not qualify "The DrS Whiskey Fund"

    ReplyDelete
  71. petesh1:56 PM

    Yes, vegetables are important

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rugosa1:59 PM

    Defense is one of few thing libertarians do support as legitimate government activity, so yes, I'm sure paying taxes for the military will also be considered legitimate. Get ready to pay lots and lots of taxes for nukes in every precinct.

    ReplyDelete
  73. M. Krebs2:05 PM

    Also, maybe we should consider making murder legal.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Rugosa2:10 PM

    First you don't pay taxes, and you gripe about being poor. Now you don't have to pay rent, and you still gripe about being poor. Maybe if you stopped buying food, you'd have some money in your pocket.

    Seriously, is there any way you can set up a PayPal or such? I'm out of work myself, but I'd be happy to toss you a few bucks.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'm working on ceasing breathing now, for when the Kochs get around to commodifying that as well!

    ReplyDelete
  76. fraser2:23 PM

    As this system presumably assumes government will only spend the revenue it raises, no deficits, it would be impossible for the Pentagon to operate. So I'm sure if anyone adopted this system it would be "military and intelligence are funded separately"

    ReplyDelete
  77. JennOfArk2:31 PM

    Why not take it a few steps further than that? Fer instance, give me some checkboxes that allow me to deny SNAP, unemployment benefits, social security & Medicare for anyone who is a registered Republican, and I'm in.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Wait, did you learn economics from Thomas Sowell, by chance?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Hey, if they're registered Republicans, they're already partway there. They're only getting the inferior, stingy versions of those programs, not the gold-plated versions reserved for lazy urban minorities and illegal aliens.

    ReplyDelete
  80. John Wesley Hardin3:04 PM

    " In a free society, they should. Oh, I guess we're not a free society then, quelle surprise, now pack your bags and fuck off back to Randistan.

    ReplyDelete
  81. susanoftexas3:05 PM

    Because donating guns to the cops first is so time-consuming.

    ReplyDelete
  82. NonyNony3:07 PM

    It would actually be kind of nice if we could have a non-binding vote on that every year with our income tax filing. Perhaps a vote on the top 10 things we'd like to see our money allocated for every year when we pay income taxes. Non-binding because it might turn out to be really ridiculous, but at least there would be an official poll of taxpayers on what they'd like to see their money supporting.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Helmut Monotreme3:10 PM

    Weird, their definition of a free society, seems a lot like a 'Grand Theft Auto' style sandbox of impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  84. but with no need for subterfuge, because that's the difference between
    libertarians and conservatives: Libertarians don't feel shame, so
    there's no need to be sneaky about it.Eh, I'd suggest that it's more that they're oblivious. Case in point: Ted Cruz isn't a libertarian. Ted Cruz knows that he needs to lie if he somehow gets a shot at the presidential general election. My father has spoken admiringly about Cruz has apparently condemned the way the "little guy" keeps losing out, while the banksters rake in millions. This from a guy who wants to eliminate taxes for rich people entirely, and is married to a goddamned Goldman Sachs investment banker. I would say that wins a fucking award for shamelessness ... with a solid brass ball cluster.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Gee, I thought this was already happening in a little dynamic called voting.


    Silly me.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Because absolutely no one would allocate 100% of their taxes as going towards tax cuts...

    ReplyDelete
  87. Take me, for example: I don't have kids in school. I don't have grandchildren in school. Why should I pay taxes so that the kid across the street can go to school? It is a way to create a kind of sociopathic society in which there's subordination to concentrated power: I think that is what lies behind the attack on the public schools and also the attack on social security, which has no economic basis. It is a way to concentrate power and authority, to impose subordination on the population in the name of liberty: it kind of reminds me of Stalin's proclaiming that we have to defend democracy against the fascists and so on. A way to privatize the system is, first of all, make it non-functional: underfunded, so it is not functional, and then people don't like it so it is handed over to what are called charter schools, which, actually, are publicly funded and don't do any better than public schools, even though they have a lot of advantages. That way you get rid of the general commitment of the public to solidarity and mutual support: the thinking that I ought to care whether the kid across the street can go to school, or whether the disabled widow across town should have food. For these guys, the « Masters of the Universe »...a phrase from Adam Smith, incidentally, that is the right attitude. You should only do things that benefit yourself, and I think the attacks on the public schools are like this. The main problem of the public schools of the U.S. is, first of all, the very high level of poverty, which is scandalous in a rich society and getting worse. Kids come to school under certain circumstances where it is going to be extremely hard for them to even sit in a classroom: they haven't eaten breakfast, they walk down the streets where people are fighting... It is very hard to teach a class on conditions like that. So the problems are partly socioeconomic conditions and partly underfunding of the schools. A large part of it is also disrespect for teachers. My wife, who taught at the Harvard School of Education for about 25 years, went to international conferences, Europe and so on. One thing that she noted very quickly, in Canada too, is that the attitude towards teachers is very different from here. They respect teachers. It's considered a respectable profession. Here, it's like somebody who cleans the streets.



    --noam chomsky

    ReplyDelete
  88. FlipYrWhig3:42 PM

    I'm going all in on Collateralized Kidney Default Swaps.

    ReplyDelete
  89. FlipYrWhig3:55 PM

    I'm guessing the first thing to happen was the word "entitled" becoming a pejorative.

    OED sez:

    Chiefly N. Amer. Believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment; spoilt and self-important.
    First cite is 1977. OED on "entitlement" as in "sense of entitlement" dates to 1952 and has as its second cite... 1977, the Annus Mirabilis of "entitlement," apparently.



    Once those meanings are in place, "entitlement" in a financial context (itself apparently a WWII-era phenomenon) can connote same, creating a sort of rhyme logic that affiliates the right to social welfare programs with spoiled brat-ness.

    ReplyDelete
  90. M. Krebs4:19 PM

    And step 2: The word becomes married to "reform."

    ReplyDelete
  91. BigHank535:15 PM

    And they still refuse to give Somalia a try. It's odd how that sort of conveys the impression that they're actually quite fond of living under a government after all.

    ReplyDelete
  92. It would be better if you could deny yacht deductions and specialty tax rates to hedge fund dudes. The new video that is making the rounds of the crazy tea partier video guy who is saying he will vote for Hillary because "he wants to keep his obamacare" is a case in point. Its better to have right wing lunatics receiving clear benefits from the government than to deny them and let them imagine that ending those benefits hurts no one but black/poor people.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Marion in Savannah5:37 PM

    Whut??? You mean you're NOT supposed to get screwed by them? Who knew...

    ReplyDelete
  94. The original problem is that only those w/ titles had "legal claims or rights to funds, property, or privilege."


    Not a good association.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I wonder how many of the people who have benefitted from ObamaCare realize that's what benefitted them? For example Kentucky named their version KyNect or something like that, and Kentuckians are overwhelmingly in favor of it. Except, they voted in Mitch McConnell based on his pledge to do away with ObamaCare.

    I'm in Florida right now, and I see people like my sister who has health insurance for the first time in 35 years thanks to Obamacare. She's thrilled to have the insurance, but she despises ObamaCare because it socialized our medical system, like those communists in Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Right, but I presume its like the prospect of his own hanging--it concentrates the mind. She may hate Obamacare but when you tell her she is going to lose what she has she may feel differently.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I hate that locution more than anything. Roads, Bridges, Police, Fire, Social Services are not all "charity." They are things we have collectively decided to do with our money.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Gabriel Ratchet6:36 PM

    Pace John Scalzi, Objectivist jerky.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Jay B.6:46 PM

    Yes, but he mentioned Stalin therefore his argument is invalid. #libertariansociopathy

    ReplyDelete
  100. Gabriel Ratchet6:54 PM

    Careful -- you may have said too much already ....

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ellis_Weiner7:01 PM

    To the WaPo readership's credit, the comments smack this ass around much as he deserves. E.g. "This is a joke, right?"

    ReplyDelete
  102. Gabriel Ratchet7:02 PM

    You'd think that people who claim to be economic geniuses would understand a simple concept like "only suckers pay retail" and yet ...

    ReplyDelete
  103. Ellis_Weiner7:05 PM

    Just as, in past lives, every one of them was a Phoenician prince or an Egyptian queen. I know that in grade school we encourage kids--in class, on tv, everywhere--to "USE YOUR IMAGINATION!" I guess at Cato old habits die hard.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Gabriel Ratchet7:07 PM

    "I've been thinking with my guts since I was fourteen years and frankly speaking, between you and me, I have come to the conclusion that my guts have shit for brains.


    -- Nick Hornby, High Fidelity

    ReplyDelete
  105. Ellis_Weiner7:10 PM

    And inefficient. Abolish the police, eliminate the middle men, and pass the savings along to the Kochs.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Say it now, and say it loud
    I'm a cow, and I'm proud

    ReplyDelete
  107. 9) You, uh, white or dark meat? *sharpens cleaver*

    ReplyDelete
  108. BTW, gmccammon5@gmail.com if you're so inclined.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Ellis_Weiner7:14 PM

    Too fine-grained. Just do it by state. What's Latin for "Out of many, one, but then out of one, back to many again"?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Oh, he's pretty damn jerky as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Oh, I'm fucking firmly of the opinion that that's what the Kochs look like at home, where they can let down their perception filters and relax.

    ReplyDelete
  112. montag27:37 PM

    The more we spend on "defense," the more the wealthy believe their wealth to be safe from expropriation--from without and from within. They just don't want to pay for the service that soothes their anxieties. They want the poor and the middle class to do that for them. After all, you should feel proud that the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and the Waltons have amassed so much money. That's proof that America works!

    ReplyDelete
  113. The more we spend on "defense," the more the wealthy believe their
    wealth to be safe from expropriation--from without and from within.


    From which follows the troubling conclusion that, at some point, they're going to want that power being presently projected outwards, to be projected inwards.

    ReplyDelete
  114. montag27:44 PM

    May I offer this comment a shit salad topped with peons?

    ReplyDelete
  115. montag27:46 PM

    Why do you think the police were created in the first place? To protect us?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Well, when were police invented? Some argue it was really when there were too many poors that needed to be kept off rich people's lands. Property requires violence to back it up, and the libertarians are ultra-propertarians.

    ReplyDelete
  117. The libertarian in me says that they're there to protect the privileges of the State, but he says a lot of stupid obviously untrue things that sound all troubling and anarchistic so I usually just jam him head-down in the loo next to my Conscience and close the door to muffle the yells.

    ReplyDelete
  118. a shit salad

    Hint: Those aren't pine nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I heard that same theory on some podcast I heard recently, but try as I might, I can't recall what it was.

    Maybe we're listening to the same stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  120. montag28:04 PM

    Well, if The State=The People Who Own the Country Ought to Run It, the libertarian is probably correct. IIRC, the wealthy bought Chicago police Gatling guns to defend against labor demonstrations in the late 19th century. And how many times have National Guard units been called out to "quell unrest?"

    We have the phrase "law `n order" because the law was always intended to preserve a certain kind of order, an order that, first and foremost, protected both the wealthy's persons and their sensibilities. We don't have, for example, draconian laws against marijuana use because it's supremely dangerous to human health.

    ReplyDelete
  121. http://studentsforliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1356235730947489.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  122. M. Krebs8:17 PM

    Good question. Did the Romans have a police force of sorts? I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
  123. The Praetorian Guard?

    ReplyDelete
  124. M. Krebs8:18 PM

    Who doesn't want corn in their shit salad?

    ReplyDelete
  125. M. Krebs8:21 PM

    It is a way to concentrate power and authority, to impose subordination on the population in the name of liberty...


    Well, that and basic childishness, selfishness, and stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  126. M. Krebs8:22 PM

    Four legs good!

    ReplyDelete
  127. M. Krebs8:25 PM

    I thank you, Mr. YrWhig.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I would favor cutting the food stamp budget down to 200 billion dollars or so.

    ReplyDelete
  129. M. Krebs8:26 PM

    As Dr. Krugman is fond of saying, the government is mainly an insurance company with an army.

    ReplyDelete
  130. montag28:29 PM

    He has a job because Cato is funded by the Kochs, among others, and they like what he says.

    J.K. Galbraith once said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
    moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
    for selfishness." Cato was founded to further that search.

    And they're still looking, high and low (mostly low).

    ReplyDelete
  131. M. Krebs8:34 PM

    I remember that not at all, but it's perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  132. M. Krebs8:35 PM

    I think the hyena deserves a bid.

    ReplyDelete
  133. We should tax the poor more, give them more of an incentive to want to be rich just to avoid the tax. I fully expect Rand Paul to steal my idea soon.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Fuck, we already have the incentive not to starve or die of exposure.

    ReplyDelete
  135. smut clyde8:56 PM

    Steak Tartarus.

    ReplyDelete
  136. smut clyde8:58 PM

    You stole it from the Goodies Book of Criminal Records (1975) so it's all good.

    ReplyDelete
  137. smut clyde8:58 PM

    The tragedy of the commoners once again.

    ReplyDelete
  138. I agree with his statement, if you replace "society" with "-for-all kleptocracy". And "should" with "would, alas."

    ReplyDelete
  139. montag29:15 PM

    "The answer, of course, is that most of it doesn't. Many of the
    recipients of transfer payments are not poor. The largest programs,
    social security and Medicare, go to the elderly at all income levels, a
    group noted more for high voter turnout than for poverty."

    Of course, our resident Cato genius slides right by the fact that without those "transfer payments," a notable majority of the elderly would be in poverty, as eighty years of data bear out decisively. This is even more true today, ever since the "free enterprise" system reiieved them of most everything except their Social Security benefits.

    As sleight-of-hand goes, this stuff is pretty awful. He keeps dropping the props, along with those last two paragraphs. It is exactly the members of that vaunted "free market," individually and collectively, that have been lobbying government for all those things he finds so distasteful. And, as part of the Cato Libertarian Credo, he's managed to bury the fact that the "development of consumer-oriented technologies" he claims the government is stifling is actually promoted by the government and taxpayer spending. Microelectronics? Check. Computers? Check. Modern air travel? Check. Internet? Check. Digital TV? Check. GPS? Check. Digital photography? Check. Drug development? Check. Robotics? Check. Solar cells? Check. Basic R&D? Check.

    Truth is, if Boaz's precious free market were left to fund the science necessary to create the current "consumer-oriented technologies," we'd still be using typewriters and snail mail (which the government also provides at low cost), and the knick-knacks and doodads flooding the shelves today would be available only to the wealthy.

    What one should always keep in mind is that these are incredibly stupid people who would starve to death without the dedicated support of greedy assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  140. E Pluribus Moron

    To phrase a coin.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Another commenter a really liked who just evaporated into the blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  142. They're not just things we've decided to do with our money--they are the very things that make civilization.

    I can understand the longing for feudalism, since every single one of those people will be a prince or a king (naturally). But don't they understand that even the King lived in what would now be considered squalor?

    ReplyDelete
  143. coozledad9:42 PM

    Down here they believe they were all beneficient aristocrats before the Civil War, and the Yankees just burned their nice shit down, just out of meanness.


    This despite well preserved Confederate army records which indicate the overwhelming majority of combat soldiers were dirt poor people looking for a government handout. And for all the brutal combat deaths, most of the poor bastards starved or shat themselves to death because of the libertarian principles of their army's quartermaster corps and the West Point circle jerk heading up the whole mutiny.


    Sorry, boys. Not that kind of government.

    ReplyDelete
  144. montag29:46 PM

    Oh, there's no question that Cruz is going to give Huckabee a real contest for the top spot in the P.T. Barnum School of Politics.

    Shit, Cruz is probably selling his mailing lists to burial insurance companies.

    ReplyDelete
  145. AGoodQuestion10:46 PM

    Boaz's suggestions sound like a recipe for "the 1% get to keep more money, everyone else gets more audits."

    ReplyDelete
  146. AGoodQuestion11:02 PM

    2.) Aren't these the same assholes who keep going on about how our tax system is too complicated? Wouldn't this make it way worse?
    Worse is the new better. The people they're aiming to benefit have People to do their taxes, and other People to fend off attention from the law, so who cares if it's a migraine-inducing mess?

    ReplyDelete
  147. AGoodQuestion11:09 PM

    This is what makes it so hilarious to me when righties go on about voter ignorance and how it's destroying the republic, as was the bitch du jour on Fox and Friends recently. Their agenda relies on voters not knowing what's what. It's hundred proof crocodile tears.

    ReplyDelete
  148. AGoodQuestion11:18 PM

    Do you know what it takes to sell shitty policy?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person11:21 PM

    I can, because that's exactly what I get from Social Securitythe Central Government Ponzi Scheme. That I've been paying for since 1966...

    ReplyDelete
  150. montag211:22 PM

    Oh, indeed. In fact, recent Congresses have dropped funding overall and mandated the IRS to spend more time and effort on uncovering Earned Income Credit fraud. And finding that fucking pony.

    ReplyDelete
  151. ken_lov11:35 PM

    I give nothing! Let all the other suckers pay!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


    The internet sure has shone a blinding light on the infantile ways that so many adult Americans think. I guess it comes from living in a culture where you never have to actually grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person11:38 PM

    Then he gives away the game at the very end:


    Are we meant to take any of that last run-on sentence from Hell seriously?
    "What does the Government do wrong with the tax money it takes in, David"
    "Why, everything, Katie!" They pay this guy to scribble this grade school drivel? Ye gods and little fishes...

    ReplyDelete
  153. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person11:50 PM

    Microelectronics? Check. Computers? Check. Modern air travel? Check.
    Internet? Check. Digital TV? Check. GPS? Check. Digital photography?
    Check. Drug development? Check. Robotics? Check. Solar cells? Check.
    Basic R&D? Check.


    Actually, I think we'd have as much of that stuff as the 1% wanted. And at prices only they could afford. Just replace every item with "yacht", and you have the idea. The little people wouldn't be able to afford any of that, and deservedly so, because they had nothing to do with making it all possible. Under the current, relatively sane system, they can, because they did, and that may be what sticks in the craw of the fanboyz of the rich and famous.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:02 AM

    Remember the National Driving Test? (On TV back in the '60s some time.) What I wouldn't give to have one of the Big Three nets do a National Budget Test. Never happen, because those in charge are probably smart enough to know what the results would be (and no inclination to change them): The average murkan has no fucking idea what the G spends its money on.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Meanie-meanie, tickle a person12:03 AM

    The premiums on Medicare and Social Security have been too low from the start.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Magatha12:16 AM

    Dude, this is no laughing matter.

    ReplyDelete
  157. YNWA4051512:41 AM

    Right on! Let's have some real welfare reform! Make them try and get by on the sort of pittance that Exxon/Mobil gets in government subsidies. They'll be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps faster than you can say "Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs!"

    ReplyDelete
  158. YNWA4051512:44 AM

    There'd be a JumboTron in every sandlot in Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  159. shocktreatment12:57 AM

    Among the clowns over at Cato, Boaz is a prince. After all their concern over "constitutionality", the prince comes up with

    "Why shouldn’t taxpayers make direct decisions about how much money they want to spend on other government programs...?"

    Besides that U.S. Constitution business about how "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;" there's those pesky budget laws, the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,

    This one, though. Holy shit!


    "Should taxpayers be able to withhold their hard-earned dollars from such programs? In a free society, they should."



    Yep, a government funded by the whims of its tax payers, now there's a government that'll last...

    ReplyDelete
  160. YNWA4051512:57 AM

    Not to worry. "Moronic" Matt Bevin (who primaried McConnell in 2014 and lost) is running in the Republican primary for governor here, and has clearly stated he'll "dismantle KyNect" in the first ad I've seen for him (because there are roughly 20 people in the R primary for governor KY-- all of them claiming to be O.G. hardcore conservative, Obama-hater number 1, etc.-- and there's not a dime's worth of difference between any of them. So I guess this is Matty's equivalent of the thing Walker said a while back where he effectively said he'd declare war on Iran five seconds after he takes his hand off the Bible if he's elected President).

    He's an exceptionally inept politician, who quite possibly doesn't actually want to win (or is just that delusional . . . or this state's electorate really is just that fucked up) . . . but there are people who presumably are giving him money and will vote for him (and have done in the past). Shudder.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "Why shouldn’t taxpayers make direct decisions about how much money they want to spend on other government programs...?"

    No need to say which Libertarian Lion would opt to spend all of his tax dollars on a DARPA sex robot development project.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Geo X3:43 AM

    Hyenas work in teams and live in matriarchal societies. Certainly not the libertarian ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  163. montag24:25 AM

    Which is why I've been conditioned by reality to think "deform" when I read "reform."

    ReplyDelete
  164. montag25:02 AM

    And just think of all the derivatives that can be created! Betting big bucks on if the donor dies! Betting big bucks on if the recipient dies! Securitizing dead peasant insurance and betting if the insurance companies go bankrupt! Starting up an international version of Countrywide to take the money paid the peasants for kidneys as down payments on real estate they can't afford! Creating a whole new round of CDOs on the proceeds! Creating new default swaps to hedge the dead peasant CDOs! Reverse mortgages to pay for the kidneys! And the stock boom! Why, I'll bet the IPO of Organs `R Us would top $100 billion. Gun sales would go through the roof with people trying to protect their kidneys, so tapping into the arms trade would be a good idea. And there would be so many people without health insurance and in pain that you'd have to be a fool not to deal a little smack, too, and laundering drug money has been a staple of finance for, umm, uh, a long time.

    Hey, this libertarian capitalism... it'sall good, man.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Not that the situation ever was better, but the federal budget used to be a bit more straightforward and understandable. Reagan really began muddying the waters back in '82 when he reclassified huge chunks of federal spending to take them "off budget" (Social Security and Medicare were the two big ones). However, he kept the tax revenues associated with those programs on-budget so as to reduce the apparent size of the federal deficit (which, you may remember, exploded to unprecedented levels as trickle-down economics was instituted).

    Today, of course, SS and Medicare remain off-budget--but are used to scare people about how we have to make seniors suffer because of the debt. And wars are always off-budget because reasons, and SHUT UP!!! is why.

    ReplyDelete
  166. The people they're aiming to benefit would simply not have to pay any taxes at all, so no need to hire anyone to "do the taxes."

    ReplyDelete
  167. Given your personal experience, you should realize by now that the only possible way to incentivize you to work is to take even more of your money and possessions away.

    Oddly enough, I was talking to a billionaire friend of mine just the other day, and he was remarking at just how indolent and non-productive he's starting to feel. "Ya know," he said, taking another shrimp from the vat of shrimp cocktail we were enjoying on the helicopter deck of his yacht. "Ya know, I haven't had a tax cut in two years. I don't know how anyone could expect me to work when it only gets me $20 or $25 million a year AND I have to pay out $500,000 in taxes on that. It's just so demoralizing."

    ReplyDelete
  168. Lurking Canadian8:03 AM

    Mitt Romney thinks the US tax code already works like that. Back during the "Romney never pays taxes" kerfuffle during the 2012 campaign, I distinctly remember him adding the 12% he paid in federal taxes to the 10% he sends to Salt Lake City and concluding that he had an overall 22% tax rate.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Very true. We could pay someone in South Philly to not grow corn just as efficiently as we pay some farmer in East Bugtussle to not grow corn.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Same as it ever was.

    "We need to bump up the tax rate .001% to cover basic classroom supplies."
    VOTER: "Fuck no! Whadya think we made of money?!?!?!"

    "We'd like to float a bond issue for $15 million to build a new stadium for the high school football team and boost coach's salary to $150,000."
    VOTER: "FUCK YEAH!!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  171. "Broprah Winfrey"

    ReplyDelete
  172. I can't tell you how much I love this image!

    ReplyDelete
  173. Really sums it up, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  174. So, this dude thinks that, given individual choices, people would vote to keep our hundreds of thousands of troops overseas while cutting/doing away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, three of the most popular government programs ever devised even though they've been the target of shills for the One Percent from their inception.


    Something tells me David Boaz doesn't get out much.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Interesting. Not sure what podcast that was. I think it was economics blogger Matt Bruenig who turned me on to the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  176. This is something I've tried to point out to rich people about health care. Even the top 2 percent would not be able to purchase the kind of medical care they want without the enormous sums, expended on large numbers of people, that have made medical trials possible. No heart transplants.No treatments at all for many diseases. Its harsh to put it this way but,in effect, we are allguniea pigs for future medical treatments.


    So the way they willfully destroy hospitals and overprice medical school is counterproductive. In order to have those doctors and hospitals--even high end ones--when you need them you have to have had years worth of research and treatment to make them effective when the rich need them.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Thanks for the history lesson!

    ReplyDelete
  178. The military has always been the employer of last resort. If you're lucky, you join up between wars. Otherwise . . . See, crackers, we're not so different after all!

    ReplyDelete
  179. And then you realized, "Holy shit, that's not shrimp!"

    ReplyDelete
  180. I wonder if "yacht" is on the list of what Kansas welfare recipients are now forbidden from owning.

    ReplyDelete
  181. JennOfArk8:50 AM

    Speaking of robots, I had one of those flashes of brilliance last night that was so brilliant, it scared me. This needs a movie treatment at the very least, if not a full-blown religion.


    One word: RoboChrist


    It's that sweet spot where the Ole Perfesser's and Rod Dreher's interests intersect, with appeal to the monster-truck rally demographic.


    He's the Transformer of Transubstantiation!


    The Voltron of the Vulgate!


    The Mechanical Messiah!


    He was crucified when his circuits were fried by a cross-circuit but now he's back and ready to KICK. SOME. ASS. And this time, he's never going away, bitches!

    ReplyDelete
  182. Makes me think of that disgusting investment-house ad where granny is hang-gliding on her 95th birthday because all of her life decisions worked out just fine ("Life well planned!") and nothing, obviously, ever went wrong. Good thing she wasn't ready to retire in 2007 or so (even given her dead husband's generous life insurance payout).

    ReplyDelete
  183. Helmut Monotreme9:04 AM

    They made that move twice and both times it was called Robocop.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Upvote for blasphemy.

    ReplyDelete
  185. He died to forgive our Sims.

    ReplyDelete
  186. When the Zombie Apocalypse comes, you'll wish you had coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  187. a government funded by the whims of its tax payers

    Wait, aren't Libertarians always squealing about taxpayers who vote themselves largesse from the public coffers and suchlike?

    And yet on this scheme they would let their Enlightened Self-Interest prevail and fund the government fully?

    SOMEONE is taking the piss here. Or maybe he just hasn't fucking thought through his own Great Idea.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Teh Google and his prophet Wikipedius are your friends.

    ReplyDelete
  189. *sharpens cleaver*

    He, uh, white or dark meat?

    ReplyDelete
  190. carolannie12:12 PM

    ???

    ReplyDelete
  191. carolannie12:13 PM

    Do you mean the taxes we pay? You do know that people on Social Security pay for Medicare Part B?

    ReplyDelete
  192. shocktreatment4:53 PM

    Among the things I've noticed about libertarians, their grasp of reality is tenuous, and irony is a lost cause.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Gabriel Ratchet1:02 AM

    I'm pretty sure that a significant portion of the electorate believes their tax money gets dumped into a general "paying black people to sit around on their asses" fund, while military spending simply appears out of thin air, the way the ancients once believed that fish were spontaneously generated by the water around them.

    ReplyDelete
  194. AlanInSF2:38 AM

    I'm seeing $500+ billion a year for dope and hookers.

    ReplyDelete
  195. AlanInSF2:39 AM

    The cool thing is, there'd be a road from the Pacific coast to California's eastern border, and you'd have to walk the rest of the way to Maryland.

    ReplyDelete