Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Wayne Allyn Root's Big Bad New Idea Every candidate for a Presidential nomination needs a Big New idea to set him apart from his rivals. Wayne Root has a Big New idea. Unforunately, it's a bad one.by rtbohan
(Libertarian)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wayne Allyn Root is a candidate for the Libertarian nomination for President of the United States. Before the entry of Bob Barr into the contest, he was the leading candidate for the nominaion among delegates and in the straw votes. He probably is still a major contender for the nomination if the vote goes beyond the first ballot.(www.rootforamerica.com)
It is not surprising that Mr. Root is a major contender for the nomination, despite his lack of political experience or any record of libertarian activism. He has a well organized campaign and has a number of contacts who are providing him with funding, . Although this is his first campaign for office, he has spent a great deal of time on the campaign trail. It certainly does not hurt that he is young, good looking and an effective speaker both on the platform and in interviews.
But his platform has only a sporadic and sometimes vague relation to libertarian positions. He does support states' rights and call the Second Amendment. He calls for abolition of the Department of Education and parental educational freedom. He talks of a more efficient government and promises not to raise taxes, but does not promise to end any tax except the inheritance tax. He calls for an easier tax form and talks about a flat tax, but he does not say whether he means the Forbes plan, where only working people pay taxes and those with unearned income pay nothing, or the "Fair Tax" that Mike Huckabee and Bob Barr support. He says nothing about ending the income tax specifically, nor does he go into any detail or what he will do to protect civil liberties, although he does call for an end to the Departmen;t of Homeland Security. He does offer a real innovation in terms of ending government waste and inefficiency, but it is not a good idea.
He proposes "strengthening" the Government Accountability Office by taking it from the Congress and making it a part of the executive branch with the Comptroller General becoming a member of the President's Cabinet. He calls for the Comptroller General to "have more power" by giving him the right to sue inefficient or wasteful government departments in the courts.
Let us be perfectly clear on this: The GAO belongs under the Congress. An argument might be made that it should be an independent agency, but I do not believe that we need one more extra constitutional independent agency. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to raise money through taxes and to make appropriations for the carrying out of government policy. The executive branch spends the money, and the Congress has not only the right but the duty to see to it that the money is spent as directed by the Congress, and in the most efficient possible manner.
We all know that the Congress discharges its funding duties rather irresponsibly. Earmarks are a means the Congress uses so that powerful members of the body can create and fund programs that the majority approves without even knowing that they are voting for them. They also make secret appropriations for unknown national security programs, and knowing fund fictional programs which they know are a covert way of funding the C.I.A. But because they do a negligent job of making appropriations is not a sound basis for further distorting the constitutional balance of power between the three branches of government. The Congress may be negligent enough to let a few egg snatchers into the hen house. Transferring the GAO to the executive branch would be setting a fox to guard the hens.
If the Comptroller General is a member of the President's cabinet, he serves at the pleasure of the President. Mr. Root's proposal that the Comptroller General resort to the courts rather than simply report to the President suggests that he knows that much misspending of funds goes on with the President's knowledge and complicity. A Comptroller General who can be fired without notice by the head of the executive branch is likely to be risk averse when it comes to whistle blowing.
And suppose that he does follow Mr. Root's plan and start instituting law suits against government programs. Do Libertarians really want to increase the power of the judicial branch at the expense of the Legislative and Executive branches? I have heard a great deal of mention of the courts among libertarians and conservatives, but I have rarely heard them advocate more power to the courts.
A candidate seeeking the nomination for President when he has no record of political activity does need an issue which sets him apart from other better known competetors. But it must at least SEEM like a good idea. Root's Big New Idea is definitely a Bad one.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
2008 rtbohan, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, April 10, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, April 10, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of rtbohan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. rtbohan is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I think the party matters. I don't think some of the changes taking place in the party are good for it, or Libertarians in general or the movement. I also think that whoever is nominated, even by a third party, should have a grasp on the fundamentals of government and the separation of powers.
Unfortunately for us, libertarianism falls into the realm of difficult to believe, because it negates most emotional arguments.
Other things that fall into this realm:
Atheism
Anti-Racism
Anti-Sexism
Anti-Cultural Bias
Scientific Peer Review
Golden Rule Morality (non authoritative culturaly biased morality)
Utilitarianism (Atomic bomb or invade Japan)
Objectivism, Reason, and Rationality
We have a long way to go before we can eliminate emotional arguments and it is going to be costly. This is being seen via the war on Islamic Extreamism. Intelectually the other two monotheistic religions have been destroyed. Islam however is still under the impression that killing for God is acceptable.
When we have 1 language in the world, only then can we avoid all wars. I predict that in 500 years, English will be the worldwide language.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-04-11 09:09:39
rtbohan,
You write:
"I also think that whoever is nominated, even by a third party, should have a grasp on the fundamentals of government and the separation of powers."
I agree. And the separation of powers dictates that enforcement powers are part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. The legislative branch legislates, the executive branch executes.
Presumably a cabinet-level Comptroller's role would be to see that that which Congress has legislated is executed faithfully rather than fraudulently, that appropriations for X are spent on X instead of on Y, etc. In other words, it would be an executive role, and it would belong in the executive branch.
'In 500 years English will be the worldwide language?'
Sorry Lloyd, but given the highest population is in Asia and they are currently dominating a lot of markets, in 500 years the dominant language will be some Asian language. You and I can make a bet on that but neither of us will be able to collect on the bet winning.
Religion, Racism, irrationality, land and abuse of power are more responsible for wars than language.
Even with different languages, people will find ways to communicate with each other and there are new technologies in development to electronically translate to multiple languages. They are not perfect right now, but they are understandable. Go to google translate tools and try to read an arabic web page, you will be surprized to understand most of it.
And finally, yes you are right about Libertarianism. It has been very difficult for me to esplain to regular people the limited role of governments and the true freedom. Most people don't get it. Most think that the government is needed to regulate everything. Some will say that government is too big but still say things like 'oh we still need to take care of the poor'; or 'oh we can not let a big employer close its business'; or 'we need subisdies for farmers'; or 'we need the minimum wage or there will be abuses by big business'; or 'guns are bad so there will be less crime without them'; or 'collective interest go beyond individual interests'; etc.
Only a handful of people understand me or slightly agrees with me. Of those who agree with me, people consider them to be wackos. But at least they are free to be a wacko.
It is very hard because we have all been brainwashed since very little in the media and worst in the school system. The school system itself originated in the comunism and with socialistic roots. What else are you going to expect from all of us who have been indoctrinated into such system. Even if you went to a private school, they still have to follow the curriculum, systems and standards mandated by the state.
I was once one of them and my convincing to Libertarianism was not overnight. When you were growing up, you were probably one of them too Lloyd.
It is very hard and we will remain a small percentage for a while.
Fortunately, technologies like the internet have created a certain level of lawlessness and less regulations that have freed us somewhat. On the other hand, tracking and surveilance technologies using the same internet are slowly taking us back.
The Comptroller General serves the role of an outside auditor. The auditor of the executive branch should be outside the executive. The Congress, as the body making the approriations is the proper body to report to. The President is ultimately responsible for what the executive branch does, and for any misuse of funds or inefficiency in using them. But the Congress has the obligation of oversight.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-04-11 17:00:55
rtbohan,
I understand the Comptroller's role -- and I don't place too much weight on "waste, fraud and abuse" as a big-ticket budget item in any case -- but I don't see that this is an especially bad idea, or anything like Root's worst idea (and nobody who knows me thinks I'm a Root supporter).
If we're going to buy the whole "waste/fraud/abuse" line as a place to focus, it makes sense for there to be an executive branch official who can not only oversee whether or not appropriated money is being spent as Congress has directed rather than wastefully, fraudulently or abusively, but ACT UPON THOSE FINDINGS in some meaningful way.
It's reasonable to argue over whether that action should involve reporting to the president, who could tell the offending department to knock it off, or asking the Attorney General to take legal action, or having litigation powers of its own, but there's no real separation of powers issue here.
Certainly there can and should be investigation and action within the excutive branch, and there ofter, but not always is. That is the job of the Inspectors General os the Department. A lot of what needs to be controlled does not need court action. I don't understand the need for involving the courts unless ciminal action is involved. I don't see the oppositin to Congress doing its job of oversight. Mpt all of Root's ideas are bad, and this may not be the worst one. But it seems to be he most original and the one which he views as his great step ahead. I think, as I indicated, that it is a bad idea. If you like it that is your privilege. But it would be a step backward in the area of a more limited government and a step forward in the movement toward "presidentialism". You are right, waste is not the major problem with the government and its effect on the overall cost of government is quite small.
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-04-13 15:57:19
rthohan,
I can see the merit of your argument against Root's proposal as being a move toward more "presidentialism," and I agree that this is something that needs to be paid special attention to given the the Bushevik push for a "unitary executive."
On the other hand, I can also see merit to Root's proposal, and I consider it far from the worst feature of his campaign. I can think of instances where there would in fact be a need for civil or criminal litigation.
Wayne Root is a great candidate for the LP, in spite of the fact that Dondero likes him. Dondero also liked Ron Paul enough to work for him at one point, and that doesn't diminish Ron Paul (much). Anyway: the radical purists would do much better to vote for Root to the detriment of the Barr campaign getting off the ground. It looks like a few former Paul supporters are helping Barr get his campaign off the ground (at least Barr's website appears to be aped from Paul). Barr would be the death of the LP --he's right about the PATRIOT Act only. He's wrong about Genarlow Wilson, Columbia (and has a drug warrior past), and wrong about gay marriage (he's against it). There's also footage of him floating around on youtube spitting out cheese made of milk from "Borat's wife's tits"... LOL
Noone can substantially criticize much of anything Root has done for the LP. Also: He's putting the name and the ideas out there, much more than anyone else is, and that's the name of the game for the LP Presidential election.
I'd love to have Mary Ruwart be president. In fact, I'd love to have her get several million votes in the coming election.
But it's just not likely to happen.
...Too little political strategy, too much philosophy.
Let's get Root in front of the media. And if we're really radical, let's hand out FIJA fliers to incoming juries, and learn to expect less from elections. Elections are great when we have candidates like Root, because they cost some police state loving jerk his office. That's as good as elections get. Elections cannot make a society libertarian, they can only defeat a tyrant.
But defeating tyrants is good, and we should do it!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 rtbohan, all rights reserved.