Russ Nelson's personal blog
I received the following email in response to a previous posting about why a MOGOW would vote Republican. I have to agree with the author. George H. W. Bush is not an exemplary Republican. Two notes: first is that I am an autodidact economist; that is, I am self-taught. If I see far it is because I am standing on the feet of giants. Second is that a Goldwater Republican can and should stand up for liberty by voting not for Tweedledum, but instead for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for President. He won't get elected, not in America's winner-take-all two party system. But voting for him will send a clear message that the Republican party needs to move closer to the Libertarian party, just as the people who voted for Nader caused the Democrats to move farther to the anti-corporate, anti-market, anti-prosperity, pro-justice, pro-equality, pro-poverty position. They didn't waste their votes, and you won't be wasting yours by voting for Badnarik. The only way to waste your vote is to vote for someone because his opponent is worse.
I have no trouble seeing why MOGOWs would vote Republican. I do, however, have trouble seeing why anybody economically literate would vote Republican in this election (as opposed to past ones, which were understandable).
As the Economist magazine has said, George W. has invented a new classification of politician: "Big Government Conservative".
Even subtracting military & homeland security spending, George W. has increased government intervention in the economy by more than any president since LBJ. He has thrown over the "small government" Reaganism in favor of expansive intervention on the economic level - against free trade (remember Steel tariffs?), for expansion of government (notice the government spending levels?), for increased transfer & social payments (remember prescription drugs?).
I can completely understand if you wish to vote for him because of his international policies; I am consistently shocked when people let that or their past voting patterns blind them to Bush's surprise reversal on economic matters.
As one schooled in economics, you should be the first to be educating your readers that the real "tax" is government spending since it removes productive resources from other uses; the level of "tax" you pay only determines how much you pay now and how much gets added to your national debt tab. Bush has been the instigator behind many "deferred tax increases" while trying to persuade us they are tax cuts.
I'm forced to vote for the Democrats this year, not because Bush is too conservative, but surprisingly, because he's too liberal.