Joe Cobb

What is the connection between his advocacy and his lapel symbol?

See the reply to Al Gore published in the Sunday Telegraph (London), Nov. 19, 2006, by Christopher Monckton, and the newly revised data on global warming published by the Goddard institute for Space Science.

Hitler’s passion was purifying the human race, based on the fashionable scientistic fad of eugenics – based on a misinterpretation of Darwin – which dominated the politics of race and social class from about 1860 through the 1950s.

Today’s scientistic fad is “climate change caused by industrial civilization” based on extreme assumptions and a misinterpretation of computer forecasting models. Unlike the older version (socialism), the new version of anti-capitalism doesn’t even pretend to be “progressive.”

Environmental conservation is everything. They don’t want to make poor people better off. They are conservatives. Overpopulation and “development” and economic growth are negative things. If most of the human race must die “to purify the earth,” people like Al Gore are ready to lead them there.

H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

Gore exemplifies the same moralistic authoritarianism, in the name of “saving humanity from its sins,” and antipathy to property rights and capitalism, which has characterized all forms of socialist passion in recent centuries. Like any form of moralistic passion, it displays disregard (even contempt) for skeptical disagreement and uses exaggerations, even false statements, for persuasive effect.

[Note: John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006), chap. 2, pp. 70-72, presents evidence how authoritarrian conservatives, like Al Gore, wilfully manipulate the truth in seeking power.]

He’s saving souls, after all !
He says he is saving the planet. Do you trust this man?

Why?

Or, consider British PM Tony Blair, who is leaving office after a decade of strong economic growth and a tumble in popularity as bad as Margaret Thatcher’s after a decade. The British get tired of the same old face. But he needs a continuation of his career too. What cause has Balir taken up? You guessed it. The Stern Review was his launching paper to campaign for some big position like President of the European Union (a symbolic post, but a bully pulpit).

The debate about climate change is worth having, but moralistic crusades to suppress economic development in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are not worth a single human life. No one disagrees that wise enviromental management is important, and also that energy saving technology should be vigorously pursued, invented, and installed.

But all this can be done with more deregulation of industry, private property rights and the rule of law in underdeveloped countries, and lots of direct foreign investment to utilize cheap foreign labor, which will increase those wages and boost living standards among the poorest human beings.

Those are my values.

Dear SL Members:

Effective January 13, 2007, I have appointed Joe Cobb to serve as Arizona Coordinator of Stonewall Libertarians. Mr. Cobb was endorsed by Stonewall Libertarians in the last election cycle.

Mr. Cobb is a friend of Bill Redpath, LPUS’s National Chair, and expressed a desire to have booths at upcoming Pride Fesitvals in Arizona.

I thank Joe for stepping forward.

Welcome aboard!

In Liberty,

Dr. Tom Stevens
Executive Director
Stonewall Libertarians

I posted Dec.4 a comment on the Yahoo email discussion list of the Libertarian Party of Orange County about the 2008 LP candidates for president and vice president. I learned Greg Raymer, the 2004 World Champion of Poker, is intested in running for VP. Steve Kubby is running for the top job, and so is Christine Smith of Colorado. I don’t know her, but I like her platform, which openly supports the political and social equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals.

Christine Smith writes me and says she is heterosexual. Glad to hear it. I hope nobody would be offended to be called gay; it should not be a focus for any kind of discrimination, just as nobody should be offended to be called Asian, African, European, or “hill billy” (my own ethnic ancestry).

If Christine was actually offended that I implied something, I would ask why? If she wants an apology, I am happy to offer it right here, right now. But I would ask why it is offensive in the first place? If anyone is proud to be a social progressive (as I am), it bothers me not at all if anyone thinks I am gay, transgendered, or whatever.

After all, we are talking about a category of vilified people. I remember the story about the King of Denmark saying if Nazi occupiers of his country in 1942 made Danish Jews wear yellow Mogan David star badges, all Danes should wear one. That example is what I am advocating, rather than affirming my non-membership in the persecuted group.

Intolerance is intolerable!

A.B., The University of Chicago, 1966
M.B.A., Chicago Booth School of Business, 1977
American Economic Association
National Association of Business Economists
(National Capital Chapter President 1986)

CAREER HIGHLIGHTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

* Extensive public speaking and writing experience; over 1,200 articles published.

* Served in the White House and U.S. State Dept. during the Reagan Administration.

* Nine years of senior legislative staff experience with the United States Congress managing federal budget, tax law, international trade, and regulatory issues.

* Adjunct Faculty member, Orange Coast College and Concordia University (retired May 2006).

* Seasoned executive with more than 26 years of experience in management:

Business, government, and non-profit foundations.
Supervised professional management teams, from 3 to 8 professionals including accounting, budgeting, auditing, and human resources functions.
Prepared and administered budgets of up to $14 million annually, for government and non-profit organizations as large as 120 employees.
Established computerized office systems and trained staff on software.

THE WHITE HOUSE & U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

1982 Deputy Director, White House Office of Policy Information
Staff director, responsible for preparation of briefing papers on immediate-news issues for senior White House staff, reporting to Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy Advisor Edwin L. Harper; ‘top-secret’ security clearance.

1982-83 Economic Advisor, U.S. Mission to the O.A.S., U.S. Department of State
Reporting to Ambassador J. William Middendorf, conducted research and prepared reports on U.S. trade policy with Latin America and the international financial situation with particular focus on Latin American debt; participated in preliminary Administration concept-discussions for NAFTA; ‘top-secret’ security clearance.

U.S. CONGRESS

1992-93 Chief Economist, Republican Policy Committee, U.S. Senate
Reporting to Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), responsible for publications, briefings, reports, and analyses of economic trends, statistics, and policy. Legislative responsibility for Senate floor consideration of bills reported from Senate Budget, Finance, and Banking Committees as well as Senators’ floor amendments and conference committee reports; ‘secret’ security clearance.

1990-91 Staff Director, Congressional Joint Economic Committee
Reporting to Senator William V. Roth (R-DE), responsible for management, organization of Committee hearings, editing of research reports, and the preparation of Minority views for Joint Economic Committee 1991 Annual Report; ‘secret’ security clearance.

1987-90 Senior Economist, Congressional Joint Economic Committee
Detailed to Senator Steve Symms (R-ID) to work with the Senate Finance Committee and Budget Committee on issues of taxation, trade, and fiscal policy; ‘secret’ security clearance.

1985-87 Senior Economist, Congressional Joint Economic Committee
Reporting to Senator James Abdnor (R-SD), committee staff economist responsible for monetary theory and policy, international capital markets, and banking regulation; ‘secret’ security clearance.

1983-85 Economist, Banking Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives
Reporting to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), prepared research papers for use by the Committee, organized hearings, received constituents on behalf of members.

1983-85 Public Law 99-185, “Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985″
Conceived and drafted legislation to authorize the United States Mint to issue legal tender gold bullion coins as a permanent program of the U.S. Treasury. Gold had been prohibited in 1933. Repeal of prohibition met significant initial opposition, but this legislation ultimately won majority support due to my efforts.

RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

1993-96 John M. Olin Senior Fellow,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Authored or co-authored 12 Heritage Foundation papers, contributed chapters to 5 books, and published more than 50 op-ed articles. Testified before Congress on U.S. trade policy (5 times) and regulatory issues (3 times); provided policy advice upon request to many members of Congress and several hundred congressional staff members. Appeared on more than 100 radio and television programs as “expert guest” on the federal budget, taxes, government regulations, and the U.S. economy; interviewed by journalists regularly and cited or quoted in newspapers and magazines more than 400 times.

1991 Senior Fellow, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, Virginia
Served as Executive Director of the I.M.F. Assessment Project, in charge of research and monographs on the results and effectiveness of the International Monetary Fund with Third World and Eastern European countries; published in 1992 by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

JOURNALISM

1966-68 Editor-in-Chief, New Individualist Review, University of Chicago, Illinois
Managing editor of an academic journal published by graduate students concerned with the economic and political ideas of classical liberalism (faculty advisors were Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and George J. Stigler).

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

“The Government Budget Folly,” National Review Online, July 24, 2003.

“Trade and the National Interest,” in Robert E. Freer, Jr., ed., Finding Our Roots, Facing Our Future; America in the 21st Century (Lanham, Md.: Madison Books, 1997), pp. 105-8.

Testimony before the Ways & Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, on unfair and counterproductive enforcement of United States antidumping trade laws, April 23, 1996.

“Why We Need the WTO,” Journal of Commerce, April 2, 1996. (Spoken remarks before the Ways & Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives.)

Testimony before the Ways & Means Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, on the World Trade Organization, March 13, 1996.

“U.S. Stalling on NAFTA Comes Down to Pleasing Unions,” op-ed distributed by Knight-Ridder Financial News Service, January 1996.

“Immigration,” in Issues ’96: The Candidate’s Briefing Book (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1996), chap. 11, pp. 333-57.

“The Caribbean Basin Trade Bill: Good Economic Policy and Good Neighbor Policy,” Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 430, October 12, 1995.

“The Embargo Imbroglio,” The World & I magazine, October 1995.

“The Economics of Good Intentions,” The Freeman, August 1995.

“The Economic Nationalism Ruse,” Journal of Commerce, August 2, 1995.

Testimony before the House of Representatives Commerce Committee proposing the U.S. Department of Commerce is an unnecessary agency with no significant impact on U.S. exports and with functions in other areas that are better performed in the private sector or by other federal agencies, July 24, 1995.

Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee against the Clinton Administration’s proposed tariffs on Japanese luxury automobiles, June 13, 1995.

“Steel Warfare,” an op-ed debate against James Will, chairman of the specialty Steel Industry of North America, Valley News Dispatch (Tarentum, PA), May 7, 1995.

“Trade,” in The New Member’s Guide to the Issues (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1994), chap. 19, pp. 125-30.

“Why the GATT Agreement is Good for the U.S.,” op-ed article syndicated by Scripps-Howard News Service, November 1994.

“A Q&A for the GATT Vote,” Heritage Foundation Talking Points, November 18, 1994. (This paper was cited and a paragraph was read aloud on national television by USTR Mickey Kantor, at a briefing for supporters and the media at the U.S. Treasury, November 18, 1994.)

“GATT Foes Weaken America,” Journal of Commerce, October 17, 1994.

“Why the WTO Poses No Threat to U.S. Sovereignty,” The World & I magazine, October 1994.

“The Real Threat to U.S. Sovereignty,” Heritage Lecture No. 497, August 1, 1994.

“The New GATT Agreement,” Regulation magazine, June 1994.

“How Special Interests want to Amend the Antidumping Laws,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 229, June 22, 1994.

“A Guide to the New GATT Agreement,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 985, May 25, 1994.

“Immigration,” in Issues ’94: The Candidate’s Briefing Book (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 1994), chap. 12, pp. 239-54.

“NAFTA’s a Win-Win Deal for the U.S., Mexico,” Orange County Register, November 9, 1993.

“The Gold Standard and Fractional Reserve Banking,” in Bankers and Regulators (Irvington, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1993).

“Issues and Problems in Moving to an Independent Currency and Organizing a Commercial Banking System,” presented at an official conference, Vilnius, Lithuania, November 1990, and at Roskildes University Economics Institute, Riga, Latvia, December 1990.

“A General Theory of Government Monetary and Banking Regulation: What’s in it for the Government?,” a paper presented at a conference by the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 1989.

“Tradespeak,” Reason magazine, October 1988.
(The abuse of language and logic in the trade debate.)

“What Makes the Fed Tick?,” The Wall Street Journal, June 2, 1986.

“A Dubious Debt Doubt,” Reason magazine, August 1985. (Why the growing U.S. national debt cannot lead to inflation.)

“Why Do Monetary Economists Disagree?,” in Ernest P. Welker, ed., Monetary Theory: A Search for Common Ground (Great Barrington, Mass.: American Institute for Economic Research, 1985).

“Information in the Market,” The Freeman, April 1985.

“Opportunity Costs and a Monetary Constitution,” a paper presented at the Center for the Study of Public Choice, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, February 15, 1984.

“Monetary Policy in an International Free Market,” in Competitive Money and Banking, Monograph 37 (Greenwich, CT: Committee for Monetary Research and Education, 1982).

The Income Tax Must Go! (Denver: Project Liberty, 1982). [link to book]

“Using the Free Market Price of Gold to Measure the Demand for Cash Balances,” Research Report 81CNC-01, U.S. Choice in Currency Commission, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1981.

“Planning for an Emergency? Let the Market Work!” The Freeman, March 1981.

“The Myth of the Stable Price Level,” The Freeman, October 1980.

The Gasoline Rationing Myth, Reprint Paper 14, International Institute for Economic Research, UCLA Department of Economics, June 1980.

“Conspiracy Economics,” The Freeman, December 1975 [Congressional Record, April 5, 1976].

“The Gold Standard and Fractional Reserve Banking,” The Freeman, September 1975.

“What You Should Know About Fiscal & Monetary Policy,” Reason magazine, May 1974.

“Emigration as an Alternative to the Draft,” New Individualist Review, Spring 1967.

Economic Opinion Astray

by Bruce Bartlett

New York Times editorial board member Teresa Tritch writes most of its economic editorials. What really qualifies Ms. Tritch to lecture the rest of us [Oct. 4] about tax policy is an absolute conviction our tax system is tilted too much toward the rich. To read her diatribe, one would think the wealthy pay no taxes at all and that the tax burden falls almost entirely on the poor and middle class. One would also come away thinking taxes do not affect economic growth at all.

According to Ms. Tritch, our tax system should serve one purpose and one purpose only — to soak the rich. Any reduction in tax rates, especially on saving and investment, has nothing to do with raising growth, but is nothing but a giveaway to the ultrawealthy. One can see now why she was hired by the Times despite a paucity of knowledge or experience in the field of economics.

The reality is the wealthy pay almost all the federal income tax and there is clear and compelling evidence our tax system — especially its misguided redistributive elements — impose a heavy cost in growth terms ultimately paid by the nonwealthy via lower productivity and, hence, lower wages and incomes.

Interestingly, the latest Internal Revenue Service data on distribution of the tax burden were released the same day Ms. Tritch’s tirade appeared. They show the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

Another IRS report decomposed the top 1 percent and found the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased their share of all federal income taxes from 7 percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion — 4 times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent, who paid an average 2.9 percent rate.

I would be curious to know just how much more Ms. Tritch thinks the wealthy should pay? Back in the good old days (from her point of view) when Jimmy Carter was president and the top statutory tax rate was 70 percent (versus 35 percent today), the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid only 19.7 percent of all federal income taxes: Though their marginal tax rate has fallen 50 percent, their tax share has almost doubled.

I assume Ms. Tritch would be happier with the British tax system, where the top income tax rate is 40 percent. But according to British tax data, the top 1 percent of taxpayers there pay just 21 percent of income taxes. The top 5 percent pay 40 percent and the top 10 percent pay 52 percent. The bottom 50 percent pay 11 percent of all income taxes. In other words, wealthy British pay higher rates — as Ms. Tritch would have here — but pay less of the overall tax burden.

According to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, we pay a very heavy price for the heavy taxation of saving, investment, corporations and estates that Ms. Tritch strongly favors. It found the tax system’s efficiency cost — output lost over and above the tax itself — is between 2 percent and 5 percent of the gross domestic product. In short, we lose between $240 billion and $600 billion every year just because of how we levy taxes.

(Bruce Bartlett is a nationally syndicated columnist. This article was first published October 12, 2005.)