I think it's a tch deeper than that JJJ. It's not so much what they think about libertarians as how they argue and defend their opinions of libertarians.
Balloon Juice is a highly trafficked liberal blog. It's also known for a highly intemperate and shouty liberal commentariate. Some consider it somewhat of a Mordor to the League's Gondor (with places like Redstate being a Mordor in the other political direction). When new angry and somewhat belligerent liberal commenter’s show up here; Balloon Juice is often credited/blamed. All that being said I believe several Balloon Juice commenter’s have become perfectly respectable League regulars.
Freddie is definitely a left leaning blogger who used to write here but he’s a lot more than that as well. He was (is) a very capable and gifted writer who can pour blazing passion and eloquence into his prose in a remarkable manner. When reading Freddie you may not agree with him but you often get the very solid impression that he really really believes what he writes. In addition to being a capable writer Freddie is also a somewhat notorious commenter far and wide across the blogosphere. I’ve seen him pop up in places like Theatlantic and here of course as well as Balloon Juice and other more conservative locales. He often is a very assertive and emotional commenter and often has had a tendency to very easily fall into a position of asserting pronouncing and then getting riles up when questioned or debated with.
In the League context he’s very well known for flying in, dropping a sternly worded judgmental pronouncement, and then winging off again into the ether.
All that said he’s an amazing writer and a powerful voice from the (some would say far) left. He also scaled back on blogging a lot to pursue an academic career.
If I were a libertarian I would (arguably) waste my vote on a true libertarian candidate and try and make the starve the beast party come to their senses and either go libertarian or at least traditional cut spending by cutting spending conservative.
Frankly I think starve the beast is especially poisonous to libertarian positions because it makes people view government services without considering costs. Starve the beast undermines libertarian principles pretty much directly and the only possible payoff comes from assumption that the government will be collapsed at some point in the future and replaced with a small government alternative.
I'm a little confused that you're attributing to me the strategy of increasing spending and increasing taxes when I have repeatedly both in examples and in personal advocacy advanced that the desirable course of action (and the action most demonstratably effective at dealing with deficit problems) is to raise taxes AND cut spending. This is the traditional method of dealing with deficits; conservatives trade increased taxes for decreased spending from liberals. This is the parameters of the deal that Bush senior cut with Democrats in the early 90's (which resulted in budget surpluses and improving balances of accounts until STB true believers took full control in 2000). This is the method used by the Canadians in the early 90's to bring that country from the brink of default to the fiscal catbird seat the country is occupying currently. This was also, I'll note, the option extended most recently during the various deficit showdowns that occurred with the rise of the Tea Party.
It is also the traditional method for dealing with budget deficits; you cut spending and raise taxes together. No one is happy but because the unhappiness is spread broadly everyone grumbles and puts up with it. Starve the beast was developed as a wily alternative to this method which, it’s inventors reasoned, would allow them to spend their days handing out candy while forcing their opponents to eventually peddle the broccoli. The problem with this of course is that their opponents refused to play along and the result was decades of candy for all.
Obviously, as a libertarian you’d have considerable objection to this since this would result in only a modest reduction in size of government in this country. I have little sympathy since libertarians really need to advocate for their preferred government structures up front; not try and smuggle their preferred policies in under the skirts of some conservative induced fiscal crisis.
Roger, that's quite a lengthy way of saying you agree starve the beast has been a colossal failure. I agree.
Insanity has famously beed defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In that starve the beast has demonstratedly failed one could make the arguement that the current GOP (and policital conservative movement) is once again taking aim at Starve the Beast strategies (much focus on tax cuts, much vagueness on spending cuts/much hiding behind the current gridlocked state of government on spending cuts) and is expecting different results which is arguably insane.
I just don't buy the "this is a problem with democracy in general" line. Canada in the 90's and Britain right bloody now is and has demonstrated that democracies are clearly capable of making painful spending cuts coupled with tax increases that result in balanced budgets, deficits under control and (in Canada's case though ominously not so far in Britains case) economic growth.
The US has so far been unable to replicate this. The US, Canada and Britain are all democracies. Only the US has a conservative movement that wholeheartedly embraces the Starve the Beast strategy. Ceteris parabus the problem lies not with the nature of democracy but with starve the beast.
Jay, Harper is the conservative Prime Minister under whom the Canadian government has ceased to balance their budget and under who's administration they've resumed running budget deficits after years and years of Liberals balancing the books. Many Canadians very uncharitably call him Bush lite.
In fairness to him Canada did have a recession (and the Liberals were long due for some time out of power) and I'd be surprised if he doesn't eventually get the books back in order. But he ain't no great corrector of government profligacy.
Ward, it depends on your definitions which I suspect are being muddled.
If you're talking about cutting spending directly (also known as throwing the poor out to die to Dems or letting the Commies/islamists/etc just walk in and conquor everything to the GOP) then yes it's not been very heavily tackled. I'd submit however that this is not starving the beast as it's commonly used in political discourse.
Starve the beast in general discourse is the strategy of keeping tax revenue low and lowering it whenever possible in hopes (mistaken in my opinion) that this will force the government to cut spending when the money runs out. By this definition of course it's been the policy of one party in this country for 30 odd years and I'd say it's been very thoroughly tried out (and found badly wanting).
Well, depends on your point in time. Initially I'd say (if I were being charitable) that they were a repudiation of it; now days they seem to have evolved into a reincarnation of it.
Yes Jaybird but can much if any of that be attributed to Starve the Beast? I mean there's a part of the credit that goes to gridlock, another part that goes to economic growth (coupled with gridlock) and then finally the Bush I GOP and the House/Senate Democrats of the early 90's cut a deal that cut spending and raised taxes which precipitated the good times for the rest of the decade. I just don't see any part of that accruing to Starve the Beast. If anything I'd say the 90's prosperity was the outcome of the last gasp of the GOP old school of cutting spending by cutting spending. Bush I lost the presidency at least partially due to his sensible deal that happened to raise taxes.
Canada definitly wouldn't work Jaybird. Their budgets were balanced by a center left Prime Minister and party who made the strategic decision to steal the sensible parts of their (destroyed) opponents fiscal platform. You'd never have caught them plotting to register lady parts.. though they did register long guns.
Roger, maybe I could compare it to conservative goals pre- starve the beast? As I understand it old school conservatives said "Lets cut spending by cutting spending (Gasp).
Starve the Beast said, in essence, "Cutting spending is hard. Let's instead run up deficits and drive down revenues so that someone else is eventually forced to cut spending for us. Preferably someone who's not us. Then we get the credit for cutting taxes and they get the blame for cutting spending. Genius! *chortle*chortle*prance*prance*.
So far, it looks like when you set out to cut spending and achieve that goal you end up with... reduced spending.
in comparison if you set out to starve the beast and achieve that you end up with... higher spending and larger deficits.
So, compared with the older conservative tactics of cutting spending I would submit that Starve the beast is a failure, and in that Starve the beast also seems to have pretty much destroyed the (credible) fiscal conservatism of one of the countries two major parties I'd assert additionally that it was a stupid colossal and destructive failure. At least from the point of view of a fiscal conservative (which I'm not exactly but as a fiscally conservative liberal I can think like one when I squint hard).
So the conservatives continue to believe in Starve the Beast because it sounds good and it's easy and pleasant to do? If that's true then (while I'm too young to know personally) I would suspect that fiscal conservatism has fallen a long long way from its state in the 80's and 90's.
Roger, as James has noted Starve the beast proponents should be able to show several of the outcomes that they predicted would occur that haven't:
-STB Proponents asserted that by slashing taxes without slashing spending deficit hawks would force spending decreases. This has been disproven. Instead voters have demonstrated indifference to deficits as a general rule unless they're partisans for a party (either party note) that is out of power. What few deficit hawks remained have been carried along squawking in a deluge of increased spending.
-STB proponents asserted that STB would produce decreased spending and diminished government programs. Instead programs have grown, spending has grown and borrowing has grown.
-STB proponents asserted that STB policies would strengthen small government spending cutters on both sides of the aisle. While Democrats have moderated to some small degree the former party of spending restraint has demonstratably and dramatically ceased to be the party of spending restraint (courtesy of their utter abandonment of spending restraint principles when they were in power). So much so that the Tea Party has formed to protest excessive spending. In essence the Tea Party phenomena is itself proof of the failure of the GOP's starve the beast position.
Chris put it pithily but accurately. There isn't a ceiling to money; more will generally trump less. Look at student loans and tuition: the easy availability of student loans didn't higher education to the masses, it just brough gigantic increases in tuition.
So I fear that the desired outcome would not materialize. Then there's the cost side of the ledger. Indeed the program would not be very big in the great scheme of things but I blanch at the idea of it none the less. For one thing the program would be written... by politicians. What it seems to me this would amount to would be some kind of status quos enforcement mechanism; yet another means by which the dominant two parties would retain advantage over independant or third party candidates.
Coupled with my doubts about the outcome this makes me feel that on balance this program would likely not advance the causes it seeks to advance.
To your second point Roger, current historical evidence seems to be firmly in that "Starve the Beast" is an utter and colossal failure. Obsessing about keeping the tax rates down while (substantively) ignoring the spending side has only served to destroy the conservative greed eye shade type, decouple government bonbons from taxes in the minds of the voters (and thus increase support for them) and baloon deficits and national debt.
That being said I would note that I also don't think it's rape. Disparate impact or undue burden or sexual harassment definitly but rape? No. Grunting paternal heavy handed authoritarianism; absolutely?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Follow The League on Twitter or Facebook”
I think it's a tch deeper than that JJJ. It's not so much what they think about libertarians as how they argue and defend their opinions of libertarians.
"
BSK, Freddie writes most frequently at his private villa on the blog sea at http://lhote.blogspot.com/ if you're interested.
"
To elaborate on E.D.'s information:
Balloon Juice is a highly trafficked liberal blog. It's also known for a highly intemperate and shouty liberal commentariate. Some consider it somewhat of a Mordor to the League's Gondor (with places like Redstate being a Mordor in the other political direction). When new angry and somewhat belligerent liberal commenter’s show up here; Balloon Juice is often credited/blamed. All that being said I believe several Balloon Juice commenter’s have become perfectly respectable League regulars.
Freddie is definitely a left leaning blogger who used to write here but he’s a lot more than that as well. He was (is) a very capable and gifted writer who can pour blazing passion and eloquence into his prose in a remarkable manner. When reading Freddie you may not agree with him but you often get the very solid impression that he really really believes what he writes. In addition to being a capable writer Freddie is also a somewhat notorious commenter far and wide across the blogosphere. I’ve seen him pop up in places like Theatlantic and here of course as well as Balloon Juice and other more conservative locales. He often is a very assertive and emotional commenter and often has had a tendency to very easily fall into a position of asserting pronouncing and then getting riles up when questioned or debated with.
In the League context he’s very well known for flying in, dropping a sternly worded judgmental pronouncement, and then winging off again into the ether.
All that said he’s an amazing writer and a powerful voice from the (some would say far) left. He also scaled back on blogging a lot to pursue an academic career.
On “Tuesday Blognado: The taxing question of … tax”
Roger:
If I were a libertarian I would (arguably) waste my vote on a true libertarian candidate and try and make the starve the beast party come to their senses and either go libertarian or at least traditional cut spending by cutting spending conservative.
Frankly I think starve the beast is especially poisonous to libertarian positions because it makes people view government services without considering costs. Starve the beast undermines libertarian principles pretty much directly and the only possible payoff comes from assumption that the government will be collapsed at some point in the future and replaced with a small government alternative.
"
Roger,
I'm a little confused that you're attributing to me the strategy of increasing spending and increasing taxes when I have repeatedly both in examples and in personal advocacy advanced that the desirable course of action (and the action most demonstratably effective at dealing with deficit problems) is to raise taxes AND cut spending. This is the traditional method of dealing with deficits; conservatives trade increased taxes for decreased spending from liberals. This is the parameters of the deal that Bush senior cut with Democrats in the early 90's (which resulted in budget surpluses and improving balances of accounts until STB true believers took full control in 2000). This is the method used by the Canadians in the early 90's to bring that country from the brink of default to the fiscal catbird seat the country is occupying currently. This was also, I'll note, the option extended most recently during the various deficit showdowns that occurred with the rise of the Tea Party.
It is also the traditional method for dealing with budget deficits; you cut spending and raise taxes together. No one is happy but because the unhappiness is spread broadly everyone grumbles and puts up with it. Starve the beast was developed as a wily alternative to this method which, it’s inventors reasoned, would allow them to spend their days handing out candy while forcing their opponents to eventually peddle the broccoli. The problem with this of course is that their opponents refused to play along and the result was decades of candy for all.
Obviously, as a libertarian you’d have considerable objection to this since this would result in only a modest reduction in size of government in this country. I have little sympathy since libertarians really need to advocate for their preferred government structures up front; not try and smuggle their preferred policies in under the skirts of some conservative induced fiscal crisis.
"
Roger, that's quite a lengthy way of saying you agree starve the beast has been a colossal failure. I agree.
Insanity has famously beed defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In that starve the beast has demonstratedly failed one could make the arguement that the current GOP (and policital conservative movement) is once again taking aim at Starve the Beast strategies (much focus on tax cuts, much vagueness on spending cuts/much hiding behind the current gridlocked state of government on spending cuts) and is expecting different results which is arguably insane.
I just don't buy the "this is a problem with democracy in general" line. Canada in the 90's and Britain right bloody now is and has demonstrated that democracies are clearly capable of making painful spending cuts coupled with tax increases that result in balanced budgets, deficits under control and (in Canada's case though ominously not so far in Britains case) economic growth.
The US has so far been unable to replicate this. The US, Canada and Britain are all democracies. Only the US has a conservative movement that wholeheartedly embraces the Starve the Beast strategy. Ceteris parabus the problem lies not with the nature of democracy but with starve the beast.
"
Hmm it's cute, but to be frank I don't see the pertinance.
"
Jay, Harper is the conservative Prime Minister under whom the Canadian government has ceased to balance their budget and under who's administration they've resumed running budget deficits after years and years of Liberals balancing the books. Many Canadians very uncharitably call him Bush lite.
In fairness to him Canada did have a recession (and the Liberals were long due for some time out of power) and I'd be surprised if he doesn't eventually get the books back in order. But he ain't no great corrector of government profligacy.
"
Ward, it depends on your definitions which I suspect are being muddled.
If you're talking about cutting spending directly (also known as throwing the poor out to die to Dems or letting the Commies/islamists/etc just walk in and conquor everything to the GOP) then yes it's not been very heavily tackled. I'd submit however that this is not starving the beast as it's commonly used in political discourse.
Starve the beast in general discourse is the strategy of keeping tax revenue low and lowering it whenever possible in hopes (mistaken in my opinion) that this will force the government to cut spending when the money runs out. By this definition of course it's been the policy of one party in this country for 30 odd years and I'd say it's been very thoroughly tried out (and found badly wanting).
"
Well, depends on your point in time. Initially I'd say (if I were being charitable) that they were a repudiation of it; now days they seem to have evolved into a reincarnation of it.
On “A Quick Observation”
Here here.
On “Tuesday Blognado: The taxing question of … tax”
Yes Jaybird but can much if any of that be attributed to Starve the Beast? I mean there's a part of the credit that goes to gridlock, another part that goes to economic growth (coupled with gridlock) and then finally the Bush I GOP and the House/Senate Democrats of the early 90's cut a deal that cut spending and raised taxes which precipitated the good times for the rest of the decade. I just don't see any part of that accruing to Starve the Beast. If anything I'd say the 90's prosperity was the outcome of the last gasp of the GOP old school of cutting spending by cutting spending. Bush I lost the presidency at least partially due to his sensible deal that happened to raise taxes.
"
Canada definitly wouldn't work Jaybird. Their budgets were balanced by a center left Prime Minister and party who made the strategic decision to steal the sensible parts of their (destroyed) opponents fiscal platform. You'd never have caught them plotting to register lady parts.. though they did register long guns.
"
Thanks Stillwater,
I actually haven't seen many neo-STBers about, well except maybe for the editorial board of NRO.
"
Roger, maybe I could compare it to conservative goals pre- starve the beast? As I understand it old school conservatives said "Lets cut spending by cutting spending (Gasp).
Starve the Beast said, in essence, "Cutting spending is hard. Let's instead run up deficits and drive down revenues so that someone else is eventually forced to cut spending for us. Preferably someone who's not us. Then we get the credit for cutting taxes and they get the blame for cutting spending. Genius! *chortle*chortle*prance*prance*.
So far, it looks like when you set out to cut spending and achieve that goal you end up with... reduced spending.
in comparison if you set out to starve the beast and achieve that you end up with... higher spending and larger deficits.
So, compared with the older conservative tactics of cutting spending I would submit that Starve the beast is a failure, and in that Starve the beast also seems to have pretty much destroyed the (credible) fiscal conservatism of one of the countries two major parties I'd assert additionally that it was a stupid colossal and destructive failure. At least from the point of view of a fiscal conservative (which I'm not exactly but as a fiscally conservative liberal I can think like one when I squint hard).
"
So the conservatives continue to believe in Starve the Beast because it sounds good and it's easy and pleasant to do? If that's true then (while I'm too young to know personally) I would suspect that fiscal conservatism has fallen a long long way from its state in the 80's and 90's.
"
Roger, as James has noted Starve the beast proponents should be able to show several of the outcomes that they predicted would occur that haven't:
-STB Proponents asserted that by slashing taxes without slashing spending deficit hawks would force spending decreases. This has been disproven. Instead voters have demonstrated indifference to deficits as a general rule unless they're partisans for a party (either party note) that is out of power. What few deficit hawks remained have been carried along squawking in a deluge of increased spending.
-STB proponents asserted that STB would produce decreased spending and diminished government programs. Instead programs have grown, spending has grown and borrowing has grown.
-STB proponents asserted that STB policies would strengthen small government spending cutters on both sides of the aisle. While Democrats have moderated to some small degree the former party of spending restraint has demonstratably and dramatically ceased to be the party of spending restraint (courtesy of their utter abandonment of spending restraint principles when they were in power). So much so that the Tea Party has formed to protest excessive spending. In essence the Tea Party phenomena is itself proof of the failure of the GOP's starve the beast position.
"
And that is pure sophistry. I'm surprised to see you deploying it.
On “A Better Way To Do Campaign Finance Reform”
Chris put it pithily but accurately. There isn't a ceiling to money; more will generally trump less. Look at student loans and tuition: the easy availability of student loans didn't higher education to the masses, it just brough gigantic increases in tuition.
So I fear that the desired outcome would not materialize. Then there's the cost side of the ledger. Indeed the program would not be very big in the great scheme of things but I blanch at the idea of it none the less. For one thing the program would be written... by politicians. What it seems to me this would amount to would be some kind of status quos enforcement mechanism; yet another means by which the dominant two parties would retain advantage over independant or third party candidates.
Coupled with my doubts about the outcome this makes me feel that on balance this program would likely not advance the causes it seeks to advance.
On “Tuesday Blognado: The taxing question of … tax”
Apropos of nothing I'm surprised Koz hasn't popped up in this thread. Tax policy was always a pet subject of his.
"
To your second point Roger, current historical evidence seems to be firmly in that "Starve the Beast" is an utter and colossal failure. Obsessing about keeping the tax rates down while (substantively) ignoring the spending side has only served to destroy the conservative greed eye shade type, decouple government bonbons from taxes in the minds of the voters (and thus increase support for them) and baloon deficits and national debt.
"
I wanna Echo Pat, this is great, especially the callout regarding corporate taxes.
On “These Things I Assume To Be True”
Great post Pat.
On “The Virginia Ultrasound Bill and the Moniker of Rape”
Thirded.
"
That being said I would note that I also don't think it's rape. Disparate impact or undue burden or sexual harassment definitly but rape? No. Grunting paternal heavy handed authoritarianism; absolutely?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.