Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 13:07:45 -0800 (PST) From: "David J. Edmondson" THE QUILL Queer Individual Liberty Letter, Vol. 2, No. 6, December, 1994 A publication of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty GLIL PRESIDENT ELECTED TO ANC David Morris, president of GLIL, was elected on Tuesday to D.C.'s Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2F. Morris becomes the first GLIL member since its founding to be elected to public office. He received 53.6% of the vote, while the incumbent received 44%. ANC 2F covers the neighborhoods near Logan Circle and Thomas Circle. Morris's district, SMD 2F04, extends from Logan Circle to Massachusetts Avenue between 12th and 13th streets, N.W. "This is an exciting moment for me personally and for the Libertarian Party," said Morris. "For the first time in memory, a Libertarian Party member has been elected to local office in the nation's capital. Moreover, this gives me the opportunity to serve my community in an open and substantial way. I would like to thank each and every person who voted for me. Their support is quite meaningful to me and I look forward to working with all my friends and neighbors in this district." Morris, a native of Texas, came to the Washington area in 1993. Morris previously had managed a congressional campaign in South Carolina and had been a candidate for the Greenville, S.C., City Council. This year, he consulted on grassroots and candidate campaigns across the nation. Morris was elected GLIL's president in May, 1994. "What motivated me to run for the ANC was first -- and foremost -- the concern about safety in my neighborhood. I want to hold a public hearing in Logan Circle Park on crime and safety issues," said the 30-year-old Morris. "I am also concerned about economic development in my neighborhood." Libertarians have won other elections this year as well. Locally, Libertarians will serve on the Charles County Board of Education in Maryland and the Chesterfield County Soil and Water District in Virginia. Morris asks his constituents who have e-mail access to e-mail him at fordavid@aol.com. GLIL TO HOLD DECEMBER BUSINESS MEETING GLIL will hold a business meeting Tuesday, December 13, at 7:30 p.m. at the home of Rick Sincere. The agenda will include the selection of a new newsletter editor and other items of interest to our 1995 operations. For directions, call Rick at (703)920-4023. LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES '94 Elections Do Not Guarantee a Libertarian Future Mark N. Hertzendorf After the recent election, many of us are outright giddy over the prospect of a Republican-controlled House and Senate. But let's not kid ourselves; if the Republicans execute the changes they have promised, it is far from certain that a libertarian future lies just around the corner. As Libertarians we need to ask ourselves, "Was the election of '94 simply a lateral pass (to the right) or a first down in our march toward freedom?" We might start by examining the so-called "Contract With America," hereafter "The Contract." Item 1, The Fiscal Responsibility Act, promises a balanced-budget amendment and a legislative line-item veto. A line-item veto ought to enhance the ability of the president to control spending on pork projects. Although it's unlikely to have a dramatic impact, it's hard to see why Libertarians would not be in favor of this. The balanced-budget amendment may be a different matter. From a strictly economic point of view, this is a stupid idea. For starters, there is no economic justification (at least that I am aware) for why the budget should be balanced in the first place. The Contract explains that Item 1 is an attempt to require Congress to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. Although at first glance this may seem like common sense, common sense fails us here. The fact of the matter is that the federal government is not constrained, nor should it be constrained, in the same manner as an individual family. The federal government, for example, can borrow billions and billions of dollars every year and not get any further into ("real") debt. This is the case as long as there is continued growth in real GNP and persistent inflation. Suppose that the annual inflation rate is 2.5% and the annual growth in real gnp is 2.5%. In such a situation, if the government were to borrow nothing, the real value of the national debt, as a percentage of GNP, would decline by 5% every year. (We are interested in considering the national debt as a percentage of GNP because our gross national product represents our ability to pay off the debt.) A 5% decline in 4 trillion dollars of debt amounts to 200 billion dollars. Hence, if the government were to borrow this much every year, it would not be increasing the debt burden on future generations. Put differently, running a yearly deficit of less than 200 billion dollars is equivalent to paying off the national debt. Hence, we might refer to a deficit of around this sum to be the "neutral deficit," since it neither adds to the real national debt, nor subtracts from it (as a percentage of real gnp). Now I am not suggesting that Libertarians should be opposed to paying off the national debt. We, as a nation, will be burdened with paying the enormous interest on the national debt as long as it persists at the current level. The taxes that are used to pay the interest on the national debt would ultimately be better spent by private individuals, or dare I say, on more productive public expenditures. What I am saying is that there is nothing special about paying off the debt at the rate of 200 billion dollars per year. What's wrong with paying if off at 100 billion dollars a year (i.e. running a 100 billion dollar budget deficit) or paying if off at 300 billion dollars a year (i.e. running a 100 billion dollar surplus). To the extent that politicians are focusing on a balanced budget, we are witnessing the triumph of ignorance over intelligence. Whether the argument is that politicians need to hide behind something before making the necessary draconian cuts in senior citizen entitlements, or whether the argument is that this is something that the electorate can "understand" and accept, there is no strictly economic argument for a balanced budget. Perhaps more importantly, there are arguments against it. Government revenue typically declines during a recession and increases during an expansion, while government spending does the reverse. Because of this, a budget that is, on average, balanced would typically be in a surplus during an expansion and in deficit during a contraction. Hence, a balanced budget amendment will require tax increases and spending cuts during a recession and tax cuts and spending increases during an expansion. Such a policy may wildly exacerbate the business cycle, causing recessions to be much deeper and much longer. Although in theory, such a pro-cyclical fiscal policy might be held in check by a very strong counter-cyclical monetary policy, in practice this is unlikely. Economic "science" has not reached the point where such an aggressive manipulation of the money supply is feasible. To the contrary, the Federal Reserve already has a difficult time keeping monetary policy on a steady course. Now certainly one will see the "fallacy" in my argument, namely, that the balanced budget amendment need only require the government to balance the budget over the business cycle and not in every single year. Such a policy would permit the government to run a deficit during a recession and a surplus during an expansion. The problem with this line of reasoning is that politicians who are reluctant to cut popular entitlements will now have an incentive to keep the economy in a permanent recession so that painful spending cuts can be avoided. Undoubtedly there will also be an exception in the balanced-budget amendment for wars. Hence, the ultimate effect of a more "reasonable" balanced budget amendment which only requires a balanced budget over the business cycle (and during peace time) would be to give politicians new incentives for creating both wars and recessions. That sounds like a sound policy, doesn't it? A balanced-budget amendment is an ill conceived, unnecessary idea based on faulty economics, poor judgement and a lack of will power. Congress does not need to balance the budget, but it does need to start paying off the national debt by having annual budgets that consistently come in well under the "neutral deficit." A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget is not a substitute for will power. The best way to bite the bullet is simply to bite it. There is no "spoon full of sugar" that will "help the medicine go down." Item 2, The Taking Back Our Streets Act, is unfortunately not an act that deals with the privatization of streets. Rather, it is an anti-crime bill. Nevertheless, I don't have any major complaints with the specific text of the act. However, _The New York Times_ (Friday, November 11, page A26) indicates that Republicans will also try to curtail the extent of _Miranda_ warnings that the police use to advise people of their constitutional rights at the time of arrest. This sounds like a really bad idea, although without the specifics its hard to know how bad. Perhaps we will follow the lead of Britain, which recently curtailed the right to remain silent following arrest. Although the law still permits defendants to remain silent, this fact may now be used against them in a court of law. _The Economist_ recently argued in its pages that "[f]or a government that professes to champion the individual against the state, the right to silence is an odd target. This was one of the first, and has long been one of the most basic, protections of the individual against the abuse of state power." The upshot of the matter is that although Libertarians ought to favor taking back our streets, if the price is a fascist state, perhaps the price is too high. Item 4, The Family Reinforcement Act, includes, among other things, "strengthening [the] rights of parent in their children's education." Reading between the lines, this sounds as though it could mean that any school that receives federal money will not be allowed to say anything positive about homosexuality. Of course, from a Libertarian standpoint, this would not be the same issue if all schools were private. But since this is far from the case, any federal legislation will most likely affect almost all schools. The ultimate effect will be to encourage intolerance, whether explicitly or by default. Although the real reading between the lines might imply no sex education, given the spread of AIDS among young gays and also in the inner city, this would also seem like a really counterproductive policy. Newt has also called for a constitutional amendment backing school prayer. Being an agnostic, homosexual Jew, I pray that this will not happen. Newt has also called for cuts in student grants and student loans. By requiring student loans to be rewritten so that interest begins accruing while students are in school, rather than being deferred, Newt hopes to save two billion dollars a year. Although there are certainly arguments that the government should not subsidize higher education, because that will lead to too much education, just like subsidizing everything else leads to more than the optimal amount, I have some problems with attacking student loans. First, given that student loans represent such a small part of government spending (at the federal level), it's hard to argue why students ought to be the first target. _The New York Times_ indicates that this will increase the cost of student loans by 20 to 30 percent. Are senior citizens willing to have their programs cut by this amount? Obviously, students are an easy target because they don't vote. So in that respect, they have only themselves to blame. Perhaps this is an attempt by Newt to increase voter participation among the young. When young people start voting in large numbers, it will be possible to cut Social Security. However, the most likely effect will be a bunch of alienated students and former students who pay preposterous taxes, work at lousy service-sector jobs, and receive virtually no benefits from the government running in droves to vote for the Democrats in '96. If we are lucky, maybe it will be a Democrat who opposes entitlement spending for seniors. I'm not holding my breath, however. On the other hand, maybe the goal here is to make senior citizen feel guilty. When they see that their grandchildren have no future because they can't afford to go to college, maybe they will have second thoughts about Social Security. More likely, they will try even harder to make the rest of us feel guilty; grandparents are just better at creating guilt. Item 5, The American Dream Restoration Act, includes a $500 per child tax credit and beginning the repeal of the marriage tax penalty. The repeal of the marriage tax penalty makes sense because the government ought not to provide incentives for people to remain unmarried. Although it's easy to see that the government should not penalize people for getting married, it's hard to understand why the government should encourage people to have more children then they can afford. Item 3 of the contract attempts to eliminate child subsidizes for those on welfare, and yet Item 5 discusses increasing these subsidies for the middle class. Maybe it's just not the government's job to encourage or discourage fertility, period. Prospective parents should have children when the benefits of having them exceed the costs. We are not facing a population shortage, so I don't see why I should be asked once more to subsidize other people's children. This is really just a middle-class entitlement program for people who desire children. Personally, I would prefer a subsidy for people who wear glasses. Item 6, The Senior Citizens Fairness Act, is just pandering to senior citizens. It will repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits. This will help balance the budget? Is the idea here that first we repeal the tax hike, then we pass the balanced-budget amendment, then the tax hike is reinstated? Or perhaps Newt believes that there is some more efficient way of curtailing entitlements. Maybe taxing Social Security is bad, but cutting it is ok? The logic escapes me. I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand this one. Item 10, The Citizen Legislature Act, requires a first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. This is the most important act of all. This is also why we don't need a balanced-budget amendment. Currently, congressmen cannot cut spending or raise taxes without committing political suicide. However, political suicide is an act that only a career politician can commit. Term limits will lead to citizen politicians who are less likely to be in the next election and therefore more likely to make the difficult choices. With terms limits Congressmen will pass laws that they wish to live under, rather than laws that they wish to rule by. Ultimately, by limiting the accountability of politicians to the electorate, difficult cuts in entitlements for senior citizens can take place. Simply put, these days things are so bad that we actually need politicians who will say one thing and do another. We need politicians who will promise not to cut social security and who will cut it anyway. We can thank Roosevelt for this sorry state of affairs. Is the election of '94 a lateral pass to the right or a first down in our march toward freedom? I believe that term limits are the key. A citizen legislature can ultimately take us where we wish to go. As for this Congress, I'm not sure. In any case, the Democratic defenses have crumbled, and the ball is in play. WHAT IS GLIL? _The Quill: Queer Individual Liberty Letter_ is the bimonthly newsletter of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), an organization of classical liberals, market liberals, limited-government libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and objectivists organized to promote the political philosophy of individual liberty, both generally and as it affects lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons. Opinions expressed are strictly the authors' own, unless otherwise noted. In addition to this newsletter, GLIL sponsors a happy hour on the first Tuesday of every month at Trumpets, 17th and Q streets, N.W., from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. We also host speakers and debates on issues of concern to our community; as events are scheduled, they will be announced both in _The Quill_ and in _The Washington Blade_. For more information, please contact GLIL as follows: Mail: PO Box 65743, Washington Square Station, Washington DC 20035-5743 Telephone: 703-920-4023 Internet: glilguy@aol.com We welcome articles and letters to the editor. You may send submissions for the next issue through January 15. You may also call for information on advertising. We shall also be happy to add you to our mailing list; while we do not currently charge for The Quill, we should appreciate a contribution to help cover the costs of printing and mailing. GAY LIBERTARIAN RESOURCES ON INTERNET The following resources on the Internet should prove to be of interest to lesbian, gay, and bisexual libertarians. If you have access to Internet e-mail (and you do if you subscribe to any of the major online services or are on GLIB), you can take advantage of the Q-Liberty mailing list. An Internet mailing list works by bouncing every posted message to all persons on the list. This list provides a discussion forum for the application of libertarian principles to lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues. To subscribe to this list, write to liberty@cyberzine.org; to post, write to q-liberty@cyberzine.org. Back issues of _The Quill_ and other files of interest to gay libertarians are available by ftp from ftp.netcom.com in /pub/gh/ghoti/glil. For information on accessing this archive by e-mail, write to ftp-request@netcom.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Edmondson ghoti@netcom.com; ftp archive ftp.netcom.com:/pub/gh/ghoti "Exalted Master, you told us that the world would end yesterday." "My child, it did end yesterday, but you're too sinful to notice."