Eric Sundwall.com

'1984' High Schools

2010-02-21T22:54:27Z

As a high school student in 1984, the height of my political outrage came in the form of the seatbelt law enacted by then Governor Cuomo. Of course we had a smoking area and could keep our guns in the car during hunting season. I recall an intelligent conversation with our principal after school one day about the concept of loco parentis, a replacement parent in law and subsequently during our schooling. There were still a lot of ex-hippies teaching crazy and complicated curriculums, but even then there were cracks in this mighty foundation of public schools created in the United States over the previous 100 years. With stories like the one coming out Pennsylvania about students being under virtual surveillance by local schools, I wish it were 1984 again. My kids might still have a chance.

I realize the erosion and illusion of the noble institution of public education has accelerated in its decline with more alternative information available on these great tubes. I applaud efforts by great libertarians like Jim Ostrowski to confront these issues forthright and without apology. Once taken, power is a hard thing to give up. In many ways the power of education is one of religion. Spreading the word and cause of freedom in a dynamic, robust free market economy is not where the dogmatic practices of rote memorization are preached and practiced.

]]> The alternative to public schools are stupid kids on the streets doing drugs. Right ? No public schools means an uneducated population getting all their information from the television, or worse yet, Wikipedia. Cuts hurt our future. Cuts hurt our opportunities. That's what the commercials say. Given our current economic conditions and future, is it any wonder that parents are rabid about their kids success on the athletic floors and fields ? A big sports contract goes farther than that impossible engineering degree. Just ask George Sisler.

Even though we thought that instant mushroom clouds could happen at any moment, we were free to watch out MTV when it had music videos. We were capable of working on our own cars that represented new freedoms in our lives. Nobody just said no because we knew the hype was just that. We got drunk and went home. Maybe we were even home. But nothing like this. The insidious watching and judgment, in complete presumption of right and mission. Ugh.

The rare 'conservative' teacher that I come across in my usual circles is resoundingly resigned to a system obsessed with sensitivity training and progressive bullying. While they hate it, risking their own position within it does not accompany any meaningful protest. The big monolithic machine just keeps churning along.

In 1984 I was not a libertarian and the idea of no public schools would have seemed nonsensical. Being a live and let live conservative wasn't easy in a very liberal public university system. While they never beat me down enough to buy the collectivist's lot in civilization as they presume through tortured examples called social contracts, I was also able to remove the shackles of statism that conservatism inherently embraces. By the time I was resolved never to return to formal schooling, the Berlin Wall had fallen and I was stumbling into previously communist hotels in Prague only months before forbidden but by party officials. Freedom was the key.

It may seem great to get a free computer from your school, we were strapped to basic Apples in 1984. Fortunately, few kids grow up without Internet now, because of the free market. That free market of ideas and information makes it possible to expose these horrible practices of school systems whose hubris and tentacles have no bounds except our truer sensibilities of common sense and decency. If this were done at a private education institution, customers would react accordingly and the behavior could easily be corrected to a satisfying end. It probably wouldn't have happened to begin with.

The public system will protect the public employees who did this. They will back peddle and deny ultimate wrongdoing. Somehow they'll be insulated from what would have been considered criminal behavior by any other. The board of education will hold sympathetic hearings all the while shrugging that they can't do anything about it now because it's under litigation. Invariably some parents will even rally around the spying for the purpose of fight drugs. Other schools will promise worried parents that this would never happen here. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

This Week with Warren

2010-01-15T18:55:50Z

Riffin' for Redlich

2009-12-29T20:35:26Z

Draft Redlich for Governor

2009-12-21T14:28:48Z

I'd love to see Jim Ostrowski step forward and try like he did in 1994. A stalwart of the movement and no stranger to politics, Jim could splatter a serious piece of humble pie into the faces of the nut job lackeys of the donkeys and elephants. His broad range of knowledge, professional capacity as a lawyer and tireless pursuit of all thing libertarian could ignite theupstate freedom movement. Who knows how many in the big apple itself ?

Unfortunately, I don't see Jim doing this. I spent a long drive with Jim last March down to Poughkeepsie (and back) and I think it's safe to say he won't try it again. Without getting too personal into his life or means, it's sufficient to say that his focus on family and profession at this point in his life is more important than a quixotic run at the head guy job in New York. I spoke with Jim this weekend and he's not interested in running for office.

However, I am urging Warren Redlich to pick up his shield, mount his high horse and charge those windmills. Warren has all the credentials and qualifications that I've listed previously and he also holds public office as a town board member in Guilderland, NY. He's run for Congress twice in a hopelessly Democratic district like Albany. He's helped me multiple times during my campaigns on a pro bono basis. He's smart, funny and media savvy. While Warren does have ties to the Republican party as such, he's by no means a favorite son. If anything he's a bit of a pariah. He likes and understands freedom too much.

]]> Like me, his hesitation would emanate from devotion to family. But I think his wife might be okay with it, if he didn't have to traipse around for anything but key media spots. Warren could count me in as an immediate and constant participant in the chase. I've listened to Warren take on local liberal icons like Alan Chartock and refute him on Universal Health Care with simple quips like 'why not universal food'. He wouldn't hesitate, like Ron Paul, to decry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan against his Democratic opponent in 2006 who voted for the occupations. Warren's Stop Wasting Money theme is something that could resonate with disgruntled Conservatives and liberty minded voters. If Warren were not to get the vaunted 50K needed for party status, it wouldn't be his fault. Instead one need only point to the constant reclamation process in play for the emotionally charged voters who cyclically show that a charismatic leader is all that is required to alleviate our woes.

Andrew Cuomo won't have as easy time of it convincing New York voters that a crusading Attorney General can simply crack the whip in Albany and make things happen. That model failed wonderfully with the fall of Spitzer. Odds are Republican wimps like Pataki and Giuliani will go after the low lying fruit that is Senator Gillibrand. Stuck with an uninspiring and unwinnable guy like Lazio, independent voters might be persuaded to step out of their historical shells and try something different. I started recruiting Warren last year for the AG nomination thinking he'd make an excellent contrast to Cuomo in that arena with a similar rationale to run. Given the fact that Cuomo's most likely to announce his purpose after the holidays, I'm urging Warren to consider it as the top tog on the ticket. Let him know you support him. He's all over the Internet, I guarantee you'll find him and he'll most likely respond personally.

This cycle is a wonderful opportunity for libertarian candidates to come forward and spread their wings this Spring. I urge all the lovers of Liberty to come out and try again. While I'll be on the sidelines watching, the headgear will be on, relaying plays and possibilities to the participants.

Draft Redlich for Governor !

Considering 2010: Liberty New York Style - Part III

2009-12-11T19:04:38Z

While I personally never seem to point to any hard electoral result in a campaign other than a footnote in Wikipedia, by virtue of the simple fact that I never make the ballot, I say it's still worth trying on occasion. I love being a candidate, fighting the battles and engaging with the public and media. The other day I had a couple at a local eatery insist that they voted for me despite the petition woes. They saw me on TV during a debate and thanked me profusely, asking when I'd try again. Since the attempt last Spring I've been mildly surprised at how often this happens. It's a sign that people are listening and want real change. Of course I demurred the other day and am doing so now in this post.

While the special election was an interesting side journey, since my experience in 2006, I've concluded that statewide office would be my only attempt again. Given my media contacts and experience I could make a decent case that running for Governor or US Senate would be effective for the message of liberty above anything else. My Guv pitch would be that I've been tossed off the ballot twice and am seeking to rectify that one final time by bringing to light the awful condition of ballot access in NY. If you and 49,999 individuals vote for me, maybe you can run next time, locally or whatever. Why waste your vote or money on Democrats or Republicans that will do nothing to stop the constant onslaught against liberty ? Because that's more practical ? Insane I say.

]]> If it was against Schumer, the narrative would be the hapless country bumpkin who opposes the welfare/warfare state as opposed to his pie in the sky views about a middle age/class fictional couple from Long Island. Throw in his goofy style, tendency towards nastiness and hypocrisy about banking and corporatism, some blows for liberty would be landed before he inevitably crushed his weak GOP opponent. If it was Gillibrand, my previous campaign experience and debates against her might make some media novelty impact. Throw in the position waffling on guns etc. since becoming Senator and it would be an almost proper waste of next summer. I'm opting for the build garage next summer, which I'll be able to keep and use, instead of compiling a new plastic bin full of campaign memorabilia and constantly wondering if the FEC is happy with the last report that didn't include any money.

Here's my take on next year for Libertarians in NY. While we are not going to win the Governor's race, a good libertarian should run anyway. The fifty thousand vote metric may seem a daunting task to party insiders, but the right amount of frustration with NY's complete dysfunction, the recent tea party uprisings and an olive branch to Rand fearing progressives and it might just work. Couple that with a savvy media approach and some self defining efforts in various new mediums and something akin to an upstate turn like Saratoga during the Revolution is fun to think about. Clowns like Cuomo and Giuliani will not resonate with a lot of tired and frustrated upstaters. A young, dynamic, professional and engaging, family oriented candidate, might make a splash that creates a virtual grassroots tsumani (yeah, I doubt it too . . . but sometimes you gotta believe). In my estimation someone not associated with Gotham would be preferable. Even in such a small geographic place, it's easy to get lost there. The right situation and personality upstate, might get some real play.

Coming Next: Part IV: My pick for the Guv nomination.

Considering 2010: Liberty New York Style - Part II

2009-12-10T23:00:45Z

The recent special election in NY's 23rd Congressional District while seemingly a success of Doug Hoffman as a Conservative Party candidate, it simply wasn't the case. In NY a special election of this sort requires the county chairs to pick a candidate. Most likely the Dede Scozzafava appointment had the more disgruntled conservative faction in the NY GOP, scrambling for what they considered a better choice. It was effectively a primary after the disaster that was a certain diminutive Schenectady resident, in the 20th District special election last spring. By pumping national money into Republican enrolled Hoffman's Conservative campaign, they outflanked the weaker intra-Republican party opponent with another ballot line. Reader's might note that my own campaign in the 20th was not received well by Conservatives who bumped me off with a hand picked judge in Poughkeepsie in full cooperation with the Republicans, no doubt.

That being said, I am urging Libertarians in New York not to select a convenience candidate next year for governor. While our lot may very well be a Sisyphus like plodding towards a damned eternity of electoral nothingness (I prefer to keep this mantle to myself), we should not sell our souls to a luke warm promise of success in a statist universe. If our little cabal actually became that ballot qualified party it might only a matter of months before it is sucked into the Borg that is New York State politics. It's not to say that protections on a bylaw and legal level wouldn't hold up to a constant deluge of attempts to colonize a newly qualified party, but would the party simply become an appendage to the bigger apparatus which tends to reward it participants with pork and privilege. Is that not our opposite purpose ?

]]> Now it may be that a popular figure who has great libertarian credentials will pop up sometime before next April when our convention is held. Whether or not they go the route of Al Damato's poker buddy Howard Stern or is the blue blooded cold feet of a tall red headed former governor of Massachusetts spuriously quoting Hayek and Nozick, that choice will be subject to the circumstances of the moment. Drew Carey ? Penn Jillette ? We need you guys. Please apply and get a NY address soon if you're interested. It was good enough for Hillary. It could only help get you more gigs.

All that being said, we shouldn't denigrate or make light of any Libertarian Party stalwart who comes forward and issues their intent to seek or get that nomination. It's what the big parties do. When John Faso stepped aside to make room for Herb London's 1994 quest for comptroller he wasn't simply thrown aside for the dustbin of history. He got his chance in 2006 against the gorilla opponent Spitzer, who's expectation from the media and public far exceeded his ability to deliver anything but the current occupant of the office. Likewise, Bob Dole in 1996.

No matter what happens or how, our fellow Libertarians who run for office deserve credit for that alone. Harpies from hip publications or naysayer's of the institutional class don't have the guts to try, even knowing that its futile. Candidates sacrifice their time and treasure for the possibility that the public at large might be smitten with a sudden bout of freedom. They deserve our gratitude regardless of results, especially when their core points are liberty. The William Weld nomination and subsequent gutless withdrawal, made the LPNY look like chumps in the eyes of the other parties. Why shouldn't any Libertarian look at our history and not see the success of resistance and perseverance? While other third parties consign themselves to political serfdom with their willingness to compromise ideals for the benefits of a few manipulative hacks, Libertarians are right to stand in defiance, proudly and independently.

Coming Soon: My intentions for 2010 - Part III

Considering 2010: Liberty New York Style - Part I

2009-12-10T22:16:27Z

Note: This content's initial publication was intended for the Examiner gig, but became too long and complicated for adequate handling there. While I did publish it there and promise the rest here, Part II and maybe three will include the rest of such thoughts.

Participants in the Libertarian Party often engage in a self flagellation that I've always found puzzling. Aside from the completely inane and popular reformer vs. radical dysfunction, wanting success or disavowing traditional notions of it, is a particular twist that frequently surfaces. In my opinion, not enough thought is given to the particular plight of the American third party historically or it's subsequent, seemingly contradictory role. For Libertarians, I would submit that New York has many circumstances that don't apply in the rest of the country. One would hope that New York would be a fine place for the advocates of liberty to act politically. After all, Texas & California don't have a view of the actual Statue of Liberty, despite their larger Libertarian affiliates.

While this is fine parlor talk amongst conspirators in between elections, a subject fascinating in itself, it's discouraging to see it as the all consuming topic at times. Should we reject some principles to gain votes or just be who we are and not expect everyone to agree ? Likely neither will work and no one will be happy. Forsooth, new elections are always around the bend. In New York, Libertarians are bound by a provision of election law which provides for party status by obtaining fifty thousand votes in a gubernatorial election that takes place every four years. Combined with the notion of fusion, the ability to run on different party lines, 'successful' third parties typically endorse either a Republican or Democrat in order to guarantee their political survival by getting 50,000 votes for the same candidate on their line, a vote that might not have been cast for the more odiferous main party lines. Once ballot access is achieved, they are free to nominate candidates of their choosing and run them in all other elections. The problem is, they don't.

]]> While our Libertarian brethren in California and Texas have the opportunity to acheive ballot access through other means tested criteria ( Texas simply collects 80K of signatures to qualify), in New York the Libertarians either have to support a D or an R or find an interested independent with either some standing, as a celebrity or political otherwise, or big bankroll. Not only is it hard to find quality candidates willing to try (mainly becuase they know they'll just lose - which most successful people don't like to do) the other parasite third parties are all too eager to endorse the big guys and crowd out Liberty's adherents. On a national level the Greens and Libertarians occupy more electoral real estate than the contrived Conservatives, undefinable Independence Party and unflinchingly socialistic Working Families Party do in comparison than in New York. That commitment masks itself as classic American pluralism and is based on the desire to move issues that are important to them. The problem for Libertarians is that we tend to view freedom on a broader level than just what ordinary legislation can satisfactorily supply us. It may be easier to oppose the seatbelt law on a reactive basis, but it's harder to explain why taxation on income is so unjust and to subsequently develop a coherent and popular policy to dismantle the previously passed and now entrenched legislation.

The Rough and Ready Libertarian

2009-12-03T15:48:17Z

I'm wondering whether author and historian Thomas Woods is in fact too far into the woods despite being one of those city kids. He pens a curious piece today on LRC defending St. Paul and true Lew against another cadre of egghead liberty folk. In typical theory of the leisure class mode, Woods assumes that all mention of certain people directly correlates with the mindful followers of the aforementioned. He takes umbrage with a statement about the state of the movement with regards to a right/left drift made by professor Tyler Cowen at a recent CATO gig.

I know Tom gets out a lot to speak at certain events and does a lot of Break The Matrix interviews. He's commented on C-SPAN about his like for media attention and the subsequent lack thereof. He's not DiLorenzo jawing with Brian Lamb about Lincoln yet, but he's still a young man and those things may come. Like most intellectuals, they think they are the indispensable core of whatever school or faction of thinking that has suddenly powered the movement de jure. The cackling minions of Paul Krugman are still toasting themselves.

Joe six pack libertarian doesn't see the world the same way as Woods. Gadsen flags, guns and legal weed all appeal to folk who don't particularly want to see brothers and sisters in foreign lands. They had that done to them since WWII. Even Vietnam era thinking supplies a notion amongst old school believers that such a war would have been won if but permission was granted to 'win it'. So yeah, another undeclared action abroad for the purposes of good might win the emotions of the day when the stakes are for the whole enchilada (ie the Presidency). Ron Paul suddenly fit the bill of someone valiant enough to stand against the Rudy's of the world. As an attendee of the 25th Mises Institute affair, I can attest to the fact that the old men of the grand old institute turned in for sleep that night at the Grand Hyatt in NYC. Hardly the stuff of the Green Mountain boys in their quest for freedom.

]]> The reality is that a lot of the people attracted to the Ron Paul movement came out based on the temporary glory of the debates and a feeling more than any movement association. The Birchers, troofers and assembled tin foil hat types have had a decentralizing rally point, but their paranoid notions and musings hold little water even in Moe's suddenly crowded bar. It was a bigger mix, agreed. Those seeking to get more political have acknowledged the practicality of a GOP presence, but seem perfectly happy pressing issues like MoveOn, within the Dems, as pluralistic parasites and malcontents threatening to leave.

Issues like abortion and immigration is what makes Cowen's assertions more true than any assertion of what in fact Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell are. That's the perceptible difference. Those of us who appreciate the movement as well as work within party means have the hardest place to defend. Happy libertarians tend to be more anarchist and unrelenting in their philosophy. If you take those notions and try to act politically and fail, you are blamed as a cow tow artist and maligned and avoided. That's the element of the right. The left will tends towards gay rights and legalizing pot. RP will say he's for it, but has never gotten 'high' in his life. His reaction to old Sasha Cohen's film exploits was far more telling than the equivalent jibe at Bob Barr in Borat. The more crunchy or crusty pot smoker is quite different than Uncle Rahm on BTM.

Like Woods I appreciate the activities of institutions, forums and groups that I in fact agree with. Unlike Woods, I'm just a regular woods kinda a guy and don't stake my professional life on acceptance by any one crowd or partisan effort.

I am a party guy though. I take to the streets for signatures come election time. I suffer through state and national committee work despite full well knowing that nothing much electorally will happen with our efforts. I have in fact read my Mises throughly and Rothbard too. I've read Doherty's piece about the movement and understand that it vast and varied. When Ron Paul goes away, what happens next ? Sure he's been rooted in the circles of Rockwell.

I've worked with and seen a variety of RP folks. Sometimes an aspiring candidate will come for an LP endorsement mentioning Hazlitt or Hayek. The oddity is when they say that protecting their community with zoning regulations is there goal as a local candidate. The candidates can be quite passionate about the Constitution too. They don't seem to realize a far more reaching effort is at play in the fields of Mises when the Articles of Confederation are heralded by the high priesthood that Woods is a part of.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan. But translating the success of a mantra to End the Fed into the bigger greater picture is more problematic. That's when the splintering starts. Pragmaticism becomes the clarion call for some, thus the Republicans. As far as I can tell the CFL is a very conservative group. Thus, the conclusion that they are 'rightist'. The hipper Cato or Reason crowd wants a little more association with money, yes, but also that 'in' feeling.

Personally, I prefer toiling in the back yard over vasts tracts of literature and now blog entries justifying and defending freedom. Which I do indulge in, but not as an end all of human or intellectual pursuit. No government ? Fine. But why . . . I'll take a few weeks or months in the trenches of electoral warfare working with mildly afflicted statists than the constant sniping and harping that can be the 'freedom' way. To a large extent this is just marching in the old Rothbard grudge with Cato and not listening to what's happening on the ground from that grand podium with a microphone attached to it.

What if Tiger goes Rogue ?

2009-11-30T04:04:50Z

As the world learns more about the Tiger Woods incident this last weekend, they all wanna know more. Sure enough the causeways that are human avenues of communication, intrigue and idolatry will fill that vacuum. I've golfed about two times and never understood the sport as more than an amusement for incredibly dull people. But I like baseball and they pay those guys a lot too.

My question is not whether things like infidelity, smashed windows, scratched faces and potential DUI charges are filed. Not whether his endorsements at risk, his swing effected or the squeaky clean image gone. Rather, I wonder whether he will take off the skirt on go all Agassi while he's still top of the heap. That is, just admit that golf is something his dad made him do and now that he's liberated from the burden of expectations, do as some great personalities in history and forge a blazing new path beyond the previous shell of existence that they were before.

Suppose he just kept the window smashed for a few weeks. Started getting brazenly drunk sputtering whatever came to his mind even while the paparazzi still followed him. Pissing on the Nike endorsements and backing Joachim Phoenix's new career as a rapper. All the while still showing up to major events and kicking everyone's ass anyway. That would be a truly GREEEAAAT Tiger.

]]> It's doubtful any of this will happen. His advisers (handlers) and lawyers will protect and re-image him. He'll do Oprah before she calls it quits. He'll donate millions to some worthy cause. Commentators during tournaments on TV will talk solemnly about his recent troubles as he gets one birdie after another. Sports Illustrated will have all the best writers scrambling to adorn their pretty pictures. Ugh.

The Big O's new book . . .

2009-11-17T16:53:32Z

Jim Ostrowski has a new book out.

It's always a pleasure to come out of a blogging coma and to do so with a recommendation to get and read Jim's latest. This one is about education. Besides the military, no entity is considered a more vital public good than education. To call for a mass exodus of the system is a bold declaration, can Ostrowski pull it off ? I'll be getting mine post haste and will see you on the other side of a review of it. I couldn't finish that last one I started . . .

Roger and me

2009-10-23T18:46:18Z

A response to Roger Ebert's recent article about health care.

Is Root Racist ?

2009-10-13T12:33:40Z

The short answer is no. Unfortunately the results of his recent article about Rush Limbaugh might suggest that he is according to the current standard. That standard is not entirely unreasonable if you apply the notion that generalizing about a particular group that is based on race. To wit;

" Yet this latest controversy about Rush Limbaugh's attempt to buy the St. Louis Rams is an example of why the Democratic Party and liberals in this country are even worse when it comes to the issue of freedom (and free speech). NFL players- particularly black NFL players- are incensed that Rush might become a NFL owner. "

According to a recent ABC News article only about six players have complained about the potential purchase by Limbaugh. One of them being personally wronged by Rush quarterback, Donovan McNabb. Former NFL player and ESPN commentator, Mike Golic (and fatty) expresses the reality of the situation;

"There are some superstars in this league. Most are foot soldiers," he said. "There are a lot of players in the league who probably don't even know Rush Limbaugh. Or they don't care what he does. He's the owner of their team, but they're getting their paycheck for their job."

For Root to generalize like he does about 'black' football players puts him the precarious position of being called racist, similar to his Reason magazine gotcha in 2008.

]]> Disregarding the usual drivel about Reagan and liberals, Root might be forgiven for this as a simple gaffe not tuned to the big leagues he strives so hard to be in. The comments in the article already reflect his unlibertarian stance in regard to the right of choice within business. But the final blow comes with his last statement;

"But hey, if it doesn't work out because of protests by black NFL players...don't despair Rush. There's always hockey."

Just goddamn dumb and no real libertarian should consider supporting this guy for any real political office. Fortunately he's seeking the most unrealistic office for a Libertarian so the only true damage that he can do is within the party. I'm hoping the hockey comment stands on its own without explanation, but I'm starting to wonder with these guys.

Culture jamming Yes Men have big balls

2009-10-07T12:29:31Z

The Sanctuary for Independent Media in Troy NY was packed for the 'sneaky' public premier of The Yes Men Fix the World. RPI associate professor, Igor Vamos (aka Mike Bonanno) let the first public US audience preview his new movie to a warm reception on Tuesday night.

Read the rest at the Examiner.

Chapter 15: The Ultimate Spending Solution - CoaL by W.A.R

2009-10-02T16:33:44Z

Some critics of Wayne Root cite his constant insistence on tax cuts rather than spending cuts as a critical flaw in his approach. While this chapter certainly refutes such claims, the idea of constitutional impoundment offers little succor to anyone who may have observed the behavior of the United States government in the last seventy years.

Root's premise is that as President he'll just not spend the money that Congress has appropriated for various items he deems unconstitutional. Barring any realistic chance of Root actually getting elected POTUS, he seems to lack a fundamental understanding of process and politics. Anyone watching the recent Ken Burns or Micheal Moore documentaries will find an almost slavish devotion to the idea that democracy can equalize economic differences in society. Utilizing FDR all the way.

]]> He makes his fantasy jump with this statement;

"A Libertarian Root administration will exercise a power that is much stronger than a line-item veto. That power provided for in the Constitution is known as impoundment. It is the power of a president to seize funds not authorized by (or in violation of) the Constitution, and return the money to taxpayers (p.162)"

While I would be one of the first LP naysayers to welcome Cokie Roberts eyes pop out of her head at the prospect of such action from an LP president, I doubt Root will ever get a chance to get kudos from George Will on Sunday morning.

Putting aside the obvious outrage and alarm that would follow such an action from 'the people' decrying the dictatorial like decree about expenditures from the democratically elected Congress, the reality is that the modern Presidency guides and presents the budget process more so than any single representative or coalition thereof. The person (or people) holding the Executive Branch know and wield this with deft political instinct. Usually their entire political existence rests on the promises they make directly to supplicants of the potential government teat.

This political reality alone is enough to adequately conclude that Root's own ambition for the Presidency is seriously flawed. Not only from the level of a potential LP candidate, but by any standard measurable, including his own allusions to Perot in recnt Reason TV interviews. While it's conceivable that any LP candidate could promise a litany of solutions
for reducing and curbing government growth. This one is based on a tenuous legalism that is completely unproven and decidedly impractical. And they accuse the radicals of the LP of such things . . .

Root goes on to list almost two pages of Federal Departments that would be eliminated under a Libertarian President. While it may very well be safe to advocate the elimination of the Appalachian Regional Commission and the ATF (it would have been funny if he included a joke about the latter being better suited as a convenience store), by no means do we see Root take a chance by suggesting the CIA or FBI be eliminated. He might have picked up a few votes at the convention in 2012 with that one. He's no Ron Paul, that's for sure. Anyone remember the look on Howard Fineman's face when RP said such a thing in the '08 campaign ?

Chapter 14: The PSTA - Private Sector Taxpayers of America - CoaL by W.A.R

2009-09-21T19:57:57Z

Evoking Nixon's 'Silent Majority' to inspire a tax payer's union might have worked if Root anticipated the Tea Party protests that have popped up in the last six months. It's clear that Root didn't have a clue about this spontaneous uprising during what was likely the final revisions of the book. In fact, he claims that these noble wealth makers (which include 'married-with-children' folks as opposed to those dual income no children types) are simply too occupied with their own success. " We don't waste our time marching, complaining, or protesting (p.155)."

Of course, come last July 4th when the Tea Party protests were in full bloom we find Wayne taking the stage just prior to neo-con lapdog Michele Malkin at a very large protest in Dallas. No true politician can turn down an adoring crowd, even the anti-politician. This chapter seems like a lame filler before the solution section and it shows again with the strained, invented acronyms and automatic claims of socialism attributed to Obama. Once again the nature of taxation isn't approached so much as the levels thereof. No mention of the wars that got us into the mess, only the upcoming vilification of the 'rich' (p.155) by Obama.