I was one of those eye-rolling libertarian democrats, and I even remember our discussion on the subject, which I blew off. I recall at the time the "tinfoil hat" community was talking about black U.N. helicopters (filled with what? unarmed Sengalise?), gun owners being rounded up and sent to concentration camps, people organizing militias in case the the government men came calling, and speech along the lines of the tree of liberty being refreshed by the blood of tyrants. Meanwhile, Vince Foster was busy being murdered by Bill Clinton, and there was talk among some people that hadn't been said much this side of 1861.

There may or may not have been civil rights concerns about Federal agents attacking homesteads of people accused of child abuse (alright, I'm fuzzy on that whole Ruby Ridge/Waco thing) but if there were valid issues there it was just plain lost in all the noise - a real signal to noise thing was going on there, which you're pretty much ignoring.

Sir, you are welcome to stand on a high horse if you must, but be aware of the ground that it, and you, stands on.

Oh, and for the record: no problem with the NSA using call records, its all part of intelligence data mining. Listening to calls without a Judge saying up to three days after the fact that its OK, on a panel set up by conservative darling Reinquest, and which has almost never refused the warrent: - that's a no no. How long you figure it'll take for Karl Rove to listen in on Dem politicians if there's no accountability?

Bill asked, "How long you figure it'll take for Karl Rove to listen in on Dem politicians if there's no accountability?"

You mean like that elerly couple that taped a Newt Gingrich phone conversation then contacted Jim McDermott? (BTW, McDermott should have been charged simply for possesing the tape before passing it to the MSM.)

McDermott is still in Congress, Bill. Why aren't you calling for his ass on a platter?

Well, now that I know, I just might. Who's his opponent? Of course, if the elderly couple were one party of the conversation, then different states have different laws on the legality of it and I seem to recall wiretapping involves a third party...

There's also the Schumer staffer who pulled Michael Steele's credit reports for purposes of oppo research. The Dems managed to firewall the damage - but it was a gross violation.

There are 11 states where both parties to a conversation must consent to taping of phone conversations (including, famously, Maryland, where a Dem DA brought charges against Linda Tripp for taping her own conversations), and 39 others where only one party needs to (including Minnesota). In no state can a third party tape a phone conversation without a court order.

Sorry Bill, the elderly couple weren't party to the converstaion. They were evesdropping on a private, cell phone chat, conveniently recording said chat.
I didn't see Janet Reno getting her undies in a bundle about it (horrible image, must purge). Perhaps she was pre-occupied with figuring out how to send Elian Gonzalez back to his dad in Castro's worker's paradise.
Vive la Revolucian!

Fine. Someone remind me when he's up for reelection and I'll paypal a small donation to his opponent. Its still breaking the law in my book.

Maybe Janet Reno was too busy barbecuing Branch Davidians to pursue McDermott. Or refusing to comment on virtually anything involving the Clinton Administration as an "ongoing investigation."

Bill, Clinton played fast and loose with the powers of the presidency with less justification and more political effect than Bush has. Look up the stats on wiretaps during his administration and the incredible jump in the number issued during his tenure. And his opponents had a curious tendency to get audited after critisizing his administration. Statistical analysis by the AP showed that audits of conservative watchdog groups were up during the administration, far more than could be explained by chance. If the Dems ever agree to release David Barrett's final report things could get *very* interesting, especially for Hillary's run.

I for one am glad Republicans are finally starting to take this crap seriously.

I'm predicting that in the not to distant future, the administration will start collecting gun sales records for national security reasons and then we can watch the Mitch's of the world go absolutely nutz.

One year before GW Bush:

From:
60 MINUTES Television Broadcast, February 27, 2000
ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
(old h/t) http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004110.htm

transcript excerpt:

---------------------------
[February 27, 2000]

(Footage of Menwith Hill Station; aerial footage of NSA headquarters; supercomputers)

KROFT: (Voiceover) Inside each globe are huge dishes which intercept and download satellite communications from around the world. The information is then sent on to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, where acres of supercomputers scan millions of transmissions word by word, looking for key phrases and, some say, specific voices that may be of major significance.

Mr. FROST: Everything is looked at. The entire take is looked at. And the computer sorts out what it is told to sort out, be it, say, by key words such as 'bomb' or 'terrorist' or 'blow up,' to telephone numbers or--or a person's name. And people are getting caught, and--and that's great.

(Footage of National Security Agency; Carlos the Jackal; two Libyans in court)

KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those successes or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance of Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up Pan-Am Flight 103.

Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted by Echelon?

Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.

KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually happened?

Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.

---------------------------

I can't believe it, I'm actually close to agreement with Bill Haverberg.
It would be nice if we had a better idea of what vetting process is used to direct federal investigations of the phone records of American citizen. If it's done at the request of the AG or a non-partisan NSA investigator, thats one thing. If the political arm of the administration is involved that's something else again. Carl Rove is entirely an operative of the RNC & Bush -- no one ever voted for him. He's not responsible to the American people.
Here's an interesting thought: suppose a muslim group known to have ties to al qaeda meets with a DNC or RNC group. Does the government have the right to follow those connections wherever they may lead?

Well Terry, just take into account all the people the former president clinton pardoned.

Right there is all you need.

At least IMHO.

Well Terry, just take into account all the people the former president clinton pardoned.

Right there is all you need.

At least IMHO.

Well Terry, just take into account all the people the former president clinton pardoned.

Right there is all you need.

At least IMHO.

Sry bout the three for one. 'Puter has been acting goofy as of late.

Grrr...

Doug: "I'm predicting that in the not to distant future, the administration will start collecting gun sales records for national security reasons and then we can watch the Mitch's of the world go absolutely nutz."

Oh, we've already seen it, and we can thank Mr. Clinton for providing the reasoning behind that database.

The Brady Act specifically prevents gun sales records from being kept for those who pass the background check (if you fail, they can keep the details). This was a further affirmation of the FOPA of 1986 preventing a national registry of guns.

Janet Reno, in her infinite ineptitude, read the statute to say that she could keep those records for 180 days "for auditing purposes." The NRA sued, and lost, a case trying to overturn this interpretation. AG Ashcroft attempted to shorten the time that the NICS is available to 24 hours, but that's hardly consistent with the Congressional intent that the records be destroyed, not just kept for a short time.

Why is this relevant to a "national security" exception? Simply because the VPC/NYTimes/Democrats (hard to tell them apart, I know) in Dec 2001 raised a stink because Ashcroft wouldn't break the law and allow a general troll by the FBI through the NICS gun records "to combat terrorism" even though such an action would clearly violate the provisions and intent of the FOPA of 1986 and the Brady Act of 1993.

Further, Schumer and Kennedy in December of 2001 and June of 2003 attempted to pass legislation mandating the retention of those records for essentially unlimited periods and with unlimited access to them by law enforcement (despite the name, the "Use NICS in Terrorist Investigations Act" never mentioned terrorism). It's strange to hear anyone call Democrats more sensitive to privacy or government limits in this context. Bizarrely enough, those same Democrats had severely grilled the AG not six months previous, making him promise to follow all laws, even those with which he disagreed. The irony was not lost upon gun rights supporters.

FYI, when a candidate in 2000, GWB promised to follow the law and keep no records. Yet another reason that I don't give him a passing grade.

There are so many reasons not to give W a "passing grade". You have to put them in context.
What would the world be like had the obviously deranged Al Gore won? Would his manic psychosis have deteriorated so fully? What would his response have been to 9/11? Would one or more American cities now be an historical episode of horror?
What about the economy? The Bush tax cuts have yielded a robust situation with unemployment below 5%, strong indicators and a bullish stock market. Imagine how those numbers would improve if some of the money being stolen by Social Insecurity were being invested.
The good has outweighed the bad thus far, regardless of what the BDS inflicted and the horribly, criminally biased MSM are constantly preaching.

"The Bush tax cuts have yielded a robust situation with unemployment below 5%, strong indicators and a bullish stock market. "

Should read: Significant deficit spending has yielded a situation with unemployment below 5%, strong indicators and a bullish stock market. This situation cannnot be sustained indefinitely without either massive program cuts (SS, Medicare, and Military) or increased taxes.

Nick I might be inclined to agree with you had the IRS not announced April tax receipts were the second highest in US history. The economy isn't a finite "pie", or a zero-sum game. I'm all for spending restraint. It's one area Bush and the GOP have really fallen short in. BUT, if they could practice fiscal restraint and maintain the cuts, we would grow ourselves out of a deficit.
I believe it was Einstien who said "the greatest miracle I know is compound interest".

Kermit, yes I agree that the Bush tax cuts were necessary in 2001/2002. They were a significant element of keeping the recession of that time to a minimum. However, when you cut taxes you also inherit the responibility of restraining spending growth. You can't grow your way out of a tax cut when you start increasing your spending at a higher rate than the economy grows.

As to the alternative, as I've stated elsewhere, the Dems are worse, but that still doesn't mean I have to praise W for his policies overall. He's gotten the big stuff right: defense, terror, economic recovery, etc. But his failings on spending restraint, the size of the government, unwillingness to defend the borders, etc. leaves many problems for the future. For someone who's more a conservative/libertarian in the Reagan camp he's been a disappointment.

"I might be inclined to agree with you had the IRS not announced April tax receipts were the second highest in US history."'

I expect the tax recipts in April (when individual taxes are due) to be the highest ever nearly every year in a growing economy since the amount is not adjusted for inflation.

The highest ever was in April 2001. Obviously spending has increased since then due to expansion of programs and inflation and receipts are more than five years behind. So the IRS reciepts shouldn't be taken as a sign that the tax cuts would somehow fund themselves.

Here is a good article by an economist debunking the idea that we can "grow ourselves out" of deficits by cutting taxes.

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/economist/4065

Yahoo.

I'm with you, nerdbert. The dems backstabbed Reagan on the spending/tax cut deal too. Now it's the GOP doing the fiscal wetwork. Regardless of what Mr. Yahoo says, you most certainly can grow your way out of deficits if you stop increasing expenditures. Can I get a "DUH"? Halleluia!

As a Libertarian, I'm surprised you didn't even mention the Fair Tax.

Go to boortz.com or fairtax.org to get up to speed.

"I expect the tax recipts in April (when individual taxes are due) to be the highest ever nearly every year in a growing economy since the amount is not adjusted for inflation."

The previous record was set in 2001. That leaves an inconvenient five year gap in your theory. So admit it: tax cut are good for the economy. It's basic economics, you're not wrong, just misinformed.

Kermit,

The fact that the record was set in 2001 is exactly the point. If the tax cuts paid for themselves I would expect nominal tax receipts to increase every year in a growing economy. That did not happen. The did not pay for themselves. Since the first tax cuts were passed in 2001 we saw a decrease in receipts in the April 2002 on a year over year basis. 5 years later we still have not surpassed the 2001 tax reciepts.

Did you simply not read the part of my post that stated: "The highest ever was in April 2001. Obviously spending has increased since then due to expansion of programs and inflation and receipts are more than five years behind."?

It is basic economics. Marginal tax cuts cannot pay for themselves. We would have to decrease spending accordingly and the Republican controlled federal government has not shown the political will to do so. In light of that I restate my original position "This situation cannnot be sustained indefinitely without either massive program cuts (SS, Medicare, and Military) or increased taxes"

"Fine. Someone remind me when he's up for reelection and I'll paypal a small donation to his opponent. Its still breaking the law in my book."

He's up for reelection this year Bill. His opponent is Steve Beren and you can donate to his campaign here:

Beren for Congress
1916 Pike Place
Box #12567
Seattle, WA 98101

LL

Nick, we went through a reccession in 2001-2005, remember? You stated the highest ever was 2001. And 2006 has exceeded it. And what the hell is "basic economics"? I'll put common sense up against it any day of the week. If the government takes less money from the people they will have more to spend, save and invest. How's that for basic?

2006 was the second highest ever and did not exceed the 2001 receipts so we still have not caught up to the 2001 level.

In one post you wrote "It's basic economics, you're not wrong, just misinformed."

I responded in economic terms and then you post this, "And what the hell is "basic economics"? I'll put common sense up against it any day of the week."

So does your logic trump the analysis of Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke whom stated the following:

"Tax cuts that reduce marginal tax rates will likely improve the efficiency of the economy and boost overall economic activity," Bernanke said in an April 18 letter to Rep. Brad Sherman.

"Because they increase economic activity, cuts in marginal tax rates typically lead to revenue losses that are smaller than implied by so-called static analyses, which hold economic activity constant," he said. "However, under normal conditions, tax cuts do not wholly pay for themselves."

Since they do not wholly pay for themselves the congress will need to either reduce expenditures or increase taxes to balance the budget. A reduction in spending takes money out of peoples hands (SS, Medicare, slower expansion of Military related industry) which means they can't spend it, invest it, etc.. Similarly an increase in tax will take money away from people.