Rand Paul launches massive libertarian ‘War on Poverty’

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul launches massive libertarian ‘War on Poverty’
By Anthony Hennen | April 21, 2016

Rand Paul wants to re-launch the War on Poverty — with a libertarian twist.

On Monday, the Kentucky senator announced his “economic freedom zones” amendment to an energy bill that would target high-poverty areas of the country for entrepreneurship and reduced taxes, according to a press release.

“Economic Freedom Zones would be the largest anti-poverty initiative since the War on Poverty,” Paul said. “The Economic Freedom Zones Act will allow impoverished areas to remove the shackles of big government by reducing taxes, regulations, and burdensome work requirements.”

For any zip code where unemployment exceeds one and a half times the national average, the legislation would lower individual and corporate income taxes, as well as payroll taxes. Other taxes and regulations would be suspended, and school choice and tax credits would be expanded.

“This legislation will provide over $100 billion to communities that have been devastated by chronic poverty,” Paul said. He pointed to eastern Kentucky; Flint, Michigan; Ferguson, Missouri; and the south side of Chicago as areas that would benefit from his legislation.

This isn’t the first time Paul has pushed economic freedom zones. In a 2013 speech in Detroit, he spoke of the benefits those zones would bring to the city. His legislation went nowhere, but he connected the zones to criminal justice reform in his vision of revitalizing impoverished communities, cities, and regions.
...
Paul’s plan avoids the government tendency to dole out corporate welfare, though tax breaks and credit are a different form of subsidy. Lowering economic barriers to entry in impoverished areas could help, as successful programs depend on strong entrepreneurs to drive growth.

“They are much more than a government stimulus or handout. They empower communities by leveraging the human capital, natural resources, and business investment opportunities that already exist,” Paul said in promoting the zones.
...
More: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/04/...n-war-poverty/

[SilentBull]

Too bad republicans are stupid. If they had picked Rand, it wouldn't even be a contest in the general.

[eleganz]

What a great headline.

[Anti Federalist]

Begs the larger question:

Why is the whole country not an "economic freedom zone"?

And if it is not, what is it?

[jkr]

Begs the larger question:

Why is the whole country not an "economic freedom zone"?

And if it is not, what is it?

it is
and
they dont care

[mrsat_98]

Begs the larger question:

Why is the whole country not an "economic freedom zone"?

And if it is not, what is it?

Because the whole country is a bunch of little nazi federal areas (zones). Kudus to Rand for a little exposure on this fact. Can someone post the bill.

Critics have dismissed the idea as a “terrifying vision” that is “something out of an Ayn Rand fever dream.”
Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/04/...xibkBe5iWct.99

Exposes the scam is what is terrifying.


https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/medi...0onepager1.pdf

[GunnyFreedom]

Begs the larger question:

Why is the whole country not an "economic freedom zone"?

And if it is not, what is it?

I'm pretty confident that the whole point of the program is to provoke people to ask precisely that question. Especially as they start booming.

[A. Havnes]

Yes! People who are not well off often assume that the libertarian party will kill them off for good. Initiatives like this show people that we DO care, we just don't go about 'solving' the problem the same way that big government types would.

[afwjam]

I hope he can gain support for this, I will call my representatives.

[osan]

Too bad republicans are stupid. If they had picked Rand, it wouldn't even be a contest in the general.

Are all Republicans stupid?

Are they stupid because they are Republicans?

Are you certain that stupidity drives the failure that you claim is theirs?

[osan]

Firstly, I am of mixed-mind on the use of "War On" terminology. On the one hand, I immediately ask, "have we not yet had enough of warspeak?" Why is it that in the past 50 years at least, that America is seemingly incapable of or otherwise unwilling to stop viewing every damned issue that arises as necessitating a "war"? War on drugs, poverty, racism, hatred... I'm sick of it.

On the other hand, MereCogs being what they tend to be, which is to say wholly polluted by F.A.I.L., are perhaps best approached by this brand of simplistic hyperbole with which they are familiar, and therefore comfortable. Let us face it, we are attempting to put a battleship into right full rudder at flank speed, said rudders having no power assist, the turning needing the help of an otherwise worthless crew of corrupt stooges.

Rand Paul wants to re-launch the War on Poverty — with a libertarian twist.

On Monday, the Kentucky senator announced his “economic freedom zones” amendment to an energy bill that would target high-poverty areas of the country for entrepreneurship and reduced taxes, according to a press release.

Reduced by how much? Why not tax-free zones?

“Economic Freedom Zones would be the largest anti-poverty initiative since the War on Poverty,” Paul said. “The Economic Freedom Zones Act will allow impoverished areas to remove the shackles of big government by reducing taxes, regulations, and burdensome work requirements.”

I cannot imagine this going through, but I surely wish him all the luck in the trying. Would this be a national deal, or something regional? Perhaps starting smaller would be wiser. Choose a state like WV where the state is so bitterly hostile to business in general. If you could turn THAT place around, the rest of the nation would have to pay attention.

For any zip code where unemployment exceeds one and a half times the national average, the legislation would lower individual and corporate income taxes, as well as payroll taxes. Other taxes and regulations would be suspended, and school choice and tax credits would be expanded.

WV would be a perfect petri dish for this.

“This legislation will provide over $100 billion to communities that have been devastated by chronic poverty,” Paul said. He pointed to eastern Kentucky; Flint, Michigan; Ferguson, Missouri; and the south side of Chicago as areas that would benefit from his legislation.

And I would submot that WV would be even better. Why? Because places like Flint and Chicago are results of mere graft and ineptitude. WV is the result of targeted, intentional malice, IMO. If no other example, take Obammy's assault on the coal industry. It is all but dismantled here, the largest mining company in the nation having declared bankruptcy just a few days ago. Add to that the openly rancorous contempt the state holds for business, and I would say that if THAT can be pushed aside into impotency, then you really would know you are on to something good.

“They are much more than a government stimulus or handout. They empower communities by leveraging the human capital, natural resources, and business investment opportunities that already exist,” Paul said in promoting the zones.

Two things - first and foremost, I would have been far more comfortable with a statement about empowering INDIVIDUALS. Screw "communities", so sorry... but the word has become for me an obscenity. Secondly, the very fact that such empowerment would loom large, I cannot believe that such a thing would ever be allowed as it diminishes governmental standing in the eyes of everyone, once success is achieved - and I do believe that it would be. I would expect such an act to be sliced and diced until such time as it would no longer have any real potential for effect. Then, failing as it predictably would, such approaches would be deemed unfeasible, if not outright failures.

But let us hope I prove mistaken, it becomes law, and economic holes like WV begin to show the world the possibilities that human freedom holds.

[eleganz]

listened to an interview where I think Anderson Cooper said club for growth was against this? Did I hear it wrong?

[RonPaulMall]

I'm pretty confident that the whole point of the program is to provoke people to ask precisely that question. Especially as they start booming.

But they aren't going to start "booming" because most of the areas in question are depressed because of the make up of the population that lives there, not Federal Tax policy. The real way to demonstrate the potential of this sort of policy would be to target areas that have sound fundamentals and high potential for growth but that aren't yet "booming".

[GunnyFreedom]

But they aren't going to start "booming" because most of the areas in question are depressed because of the make up of the population that lives there, not Federal Tax policy. The real way to demonstrate the potential of this sort of policy would be to target areas that have sound fundamentals and high potential for growth but that aren't yet "booming".

Your world view. I do not share it.

[RonPaulMall]

Your world view. I do not share it.

Federal tax policy is currently the same everywhere, so tax policy obviously has nothing to do with which areas are prosperous and which are failures. If you are trying to prove the benefits of lower taxes, why would you choose a dysfunctional community over one that is fundamentally sound? The dysfunctional community already has a host of issues totally unrelated to taxes holding it back and any one of those issues can screw with your experiment and make it look like your tax policy didn't achieve anything.

[GunnyFreedom]

Federal tax policy is currently the same everywhere, so tax policy obviously has nothing to do with which areas are prosperous and which are failures. If you are trying to prove the benefits of lower taxes, why would you choose a dysfunctional community over one that is fundamentally sound? The dysfunctional community already has a host of issues totally unrelated to taxes holding it back and any one of those issues can screw with your experiment and make it look like your tax policy didn't achieve anything.

In other words, everyone in America pays the exact same tax, and the reason they suck is because they are Black. Lowering tax burdens might help smart suburban whites grow a better economy, but not Blacks and rednecks. See, we're just stupid and must needs look to our betters like you to takes care of us'ns.

Not only do I not share your world view, but I detest it, and will never share it.

[tod evans]

Hey I have an idea......

Could there be a government free zone?

One where not only are taxes not collected but federal money is not disbursed, to anybody for any reason...

I'd even consider leaving the Ozarks for such a place....

[RonPaulMall]

In other words, everyone in America pays the exact same tax, and the reason they suck is because they are Black. Lowering tax burdens might help smart suburban whites grow a better economy, but not Blacks and rednecks. See, we're just stupid and must needs look to our betters like you to takes care of us'ns.

Not only do I not share your world view, but I detest it, and will never share it.

This is basic scientific method 101 stuff. If you have a drug and you want to test to see if it helps cancer patients live longer, you'd test it on people with cancer and only cancer. You wouldn't pick as your subjects cancer patients that also happen to suffer from AIDS, Hep C, Tuberculosis, and Behcet's Disease.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is basic scientific method 101 stuff. If you have a drug and you want to test to see if it helps cancer patients live longer, you'd test it on people with cancer and only cancer. You wouldn't pick as your subjects cancer patients that also happen to suffer from AIDS, Hep C, Tuberculosis, and Behcet's Disease.

You can dress up a dead fish all you want to, it doesn't become a GI Joe, it's still just a dead fish inside little bits of cloth.

[tod evans]

Giving a bit more thought to this it seems like rewarding bad behavior..

"You get more of what you subsidize" also comes into play...

Companies whose work is by nature transitory would leap at the chance to move in until the tax breaks ran out, then they'd be down the road to the next haven...

[Murray N Rothbard]

it is
and
they dont care

Uh, wait, you think the US overall is an "economic freedom" zone? Furthest thing from the truth. It is only economically free in comparison to more totalitarian countries. There is very little economic freedom, in an absolute sense, in this country.

[jkr]

Uh, wait, you think the US overall is an "economic freedom" zone? Furthest thing from the truth. It is only economically free in comparison to more totalitarian countries. There is very little economic freedom, in an absolute sense, in this country.

EXACTLY

[RonPaulMall]

Giving a bit more thought to this it seems like rewarding bad behavior..

"You get more of what you subsidize" also comes into play...

Companies whose work is by nature transitory would leap at the chance to move in until the tax breaks ran out, then they'd be down the road to the next haven...

From a moral standpoint it is utterly indefensible. Flint, Michigan gets huge tax breaks for having one and a half times the national unemployment rate and a neighboring community that maybe worked a little harder and has better people so that they limited it to one and a quarter unemployment gets screwed and all their jobs move next door to take advantage of the tax windfall.

The only way this makes any sense is as a test of concept, and like I pointed out, Rand has chosen the absolute worst communities in America if he is looking to prove the idea lower taxes and less regulation works. The Left never tires of talking about how Libertarianism doesn't work because...Somalia! And here Rand is with an idea not to test Libertarianism but rather just a sort of mild Club for Growth style tax proposal and he chooses as the laboratory for that experiment.....the American version of Somalia!

Repugnant from a moral perspective, idiotic from a practical perspective. Why do I get the feeling this is the one proposal of Rand's that the establishment might actually allow to pass? I could totally see Paul Ryan getting a hard on for this nonsense.