The Volokh Conspiracy's Left Turn
A week ago I recommended the Volokh Conspiracy even though I disagree with almost everything they say. Then, I read this post on Sen. Santorum by conspirator Jacob Levy
, which concludes:
Santorum doesn't only have an outrageous view of the proper scope of state power over sex. He's also expressing, and inflaming, ugly, bigoted views about homosexuality.
And yet Republicans ask me why I'm not one of them...
Ok, I agree with that.
The post right before that one is Eugene's views on the Baseball Hall of Fame disinvitation
The chief problem here, I think, wasn't with Petroskey trying to punish Robbins for his speech; it was Petroskey using Hall of Fame events as a vehicle for his own political ideology. That's not, I think, what he was selected to do, and it's not ethical for someone who serves an apolitical institution to use it for his own personal political purposes -- especially when his actions may end up hurting the institution, precisely by making people see it as politicized.
Uh oh, I agree with that, too.
Notwithstanding this entry's title, this reflects the Libertarian bent of The Conspirators more than anything, but I think it's indicative of the alignment of interests of the Libertarians and Democrats (especially Howard Dean). I know, I know, Libertarians hate the Democratic Party's tax policy, but I hope they don't allow this administration to pay them to shut up about civil liberties.
Eugene Volokh linked to this entry
I much appreciate the praise, but I think this misses a very basic point about Libertarians: We think that lower taxes and lighter economic regulation are matters of civil liberties. That -- plus other issues, such as gun rights -- are a big part of why the interests of the Libertarians and the Democrats are pretty far out of alignment, on some utterly fundamental matters.
I'm all for lighter (but not no) economic regulation and I support gun rights, and I am not alone on the left. But, in my opinion, lowering taxes takes a back seat to paying off the debt, funding our government, helping out the states, and funding mandates (like "No child left behind"). If we could show that the government could function with less money before cutting taxes, it would be harder to oppose it. Looking at our country's current position, is cutting taxes really the obvious next step? That doesn't seem right to me.
Here's how to sell tax-cuts to Democrats. On this map
, dark red states went to Bush in 2000 and are net receivers of federal tax, light red states are Bush states who net pay. (from PollKatz
). In general, states with large urban areas (New York, New Jersey, California) favor Democrats, but net-pay taxes (so much for the welfare state). Ironically, many Senators that are the most gung-ho for tax-cuts, represent states that net-receive money from the federal government.