Starchild, what you are describing is a "poison pill", which would cause me
to vote against the good thing to keep the bad thing from happening (or veto
it if in an executive capacity). While a huge chunk of the gay community
may support a same-sex marriage bill in exchange for supporting a military
draft, I certainly would not. IMHO, gridlock is better than losing ground.
Unfortunately, the way Congress currently works, there's always more bad
stuff than good stuff in any omnibus spending bill, so I'd never be able to
vote for any budget. If a tax cut bill requires increased spending, we all
know that it's really just a deferred tax increase.
It's pointless to spend much time arguing the potential merits or drawbacks of theoretical omnibus spending legislation or similar mixed proposals whether in the form of ballot measures or whatever. You never know what mixture of good and bad things may be cobbled together, so they must be taken on a case-by-case basis and analyzed to see whether they would do more harm or more good.
I'm not saying real tax cuts are bad. That's an easy concept to understand.
I'm just saying that a tax cut isn't always a tax cut anymore, since it's
almost always tied to a spending increase (with the notable exception of
petition-driven local anti-tax initiatives). That's the concept you seem to
be having trouble with.
I understand that what government types pass off as "tax cuts" aren't always tax cuts. But if they're not really tax cuts, then *we* should not participating in the charade by calling them tax cuts. When things are what they claim to be, tax cuts are good, period. Oh I suppose if there were a tax cut just for white males or some other extremely unlikely hypothetical, I would have a hard time supporting it, but I wouldn't get out and oppose it either. If it ever passed, it would open the door to demands for tax cuts for other ethnicities on the basis of fairness. I think we've discussed the morality of such a case before.
We Libertarians have a reputation for not having any common sense about
politics. Everything is "all or nothing". That puts us at a strategic
disadvantage, because the opposition knows that some of our hot-button
issues are so important to us that we'll abandon our basic principles. If I
asked you, would the Libertarian Party support a new government program to
produce, distribute, regulate, and sell via a monopoly a certain type of
health care to all citizens without any market controls, would you say "No"?
Because we very nearly did just that -- Prop S last year to have San
Francisco start its own medical marijuana distribution bureaucracy. It's no
mistake that such a proposal came from a big-spending liberal. He couldn't
ever get the voters to support a similar government monopoly on blood
pressure meds, even though he believes in such constructs, so he picked
something we'd be less rational about. The gun control politicians play
this trick on the NRA all the time.
That's a very strange paragraph, Rob. Applying common sense to politics does NOT lead me to conclude that Mark Leno proposed Prop. S because he was looking to create a new government monopoly and figured marijuana would be the easiest one to sell. If Leno was on a quest for government monopolies, he would be championing the Bay Guardian's relentless crusade for "public power" in San Francisco, which has long been on the brink of becoming a reality and still may. No, I think the reality is that he sincerely wants to stop the feds from busting people for medical marijuana, but being a statist, naturally came up with a statist model for achieving that goal. It was precisely our "all or nothing" approach, and our disregard of common sense politics, in my opinion, that led us to wrongly reject Proposition S -- which passed by a large margin (as I predicted it would), and was, in the bigger picture, a nice slap in the face to the Drug Warriors. Rather than looking at the practical reality of the situation, we got hung up on the fact that it was giving government an opening to be involved in the marijuana business and voted no on principle.
I'm not saying we should stop agitating for tax breaks. I'm just saying
that we should be more critical in analyzing the true consequences of any
proposal we consider.
It's hard for me to see how we could be much more critical than we are now without simply saying "NO!" to everything that crosses our desk.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>