If something is a perennial “unoccupied space,” then perhaps it is because it's a vote-loser. In which case the argument for your strategy of converting people intellectually is a good one, but the fact that successful politicians run away from your unoccupied space may imply that that space isn't really that big. Or at least not full of voters.

Consider the case of Tom Campbell the Republican Congressman, who ran against Dianne Feinstein in 2000 in California. He was a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights libertarian Republican who ran advertising his pro-decriminalization of pot stance. He was crushed by an even larger margin than usual in the Senate race. And this was in California, where you might argue that libertarian politics would have some kind of traction.

I just don't see how this “drawing attention to the unoccupied space” can possibly be viewed as a good thing.

Obama is absolutely clueless.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue that these tax increases will pay for the largesse as you call it but it's a start and I think Steve's larger point stands: Quit being hysterical about tax levels on the rich that are still much lower than the median over the past 100 years!

There is no way these increases on the rich will come close to paying for all this largess. You are delusional or a liar if you think otherwise.

They want their cake and to eat it too. It doesn't work that way no matter how many times Obama and his ilk say otherwise.

The wealthy buying homes they can afford is not the problem. The problem is using incentives to encourage people to buy homes who should not be buying them (until they are more responsible, have more money, etc.). The mortgage deduction is a systemic problem that tinkers with the market and encourages housing bubbles.

If Obama was 1/100th the man he claims to be, he would state this and do away with the mortgage deduction entirely. The first major political figure to seriously propose and back this will actually be a leader instead of an empty suit. The only comparable thing I've seen in the past 10 years is Bush attempting to reform Social Security. He may have failed, but I do give him credit for trying.

This plan does nothing but reduce the tax base.
There is no way this budget produces anything but ever larger deficits.

I'm trying to occupy it!

The problem's that arise with a 0% CG rate are more practical: they create a huge incentive to try to reclassify ordinary income as capital gains and eat up a bunch of resources in doing so.

I'm reminded of this little figure:

http://lanekenworthy.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

What this chart reveals is that to the extent to which states engineer redistribution, they tend to do it less through the structure of the tax code, and more through the way in which expenditures are organized.

To press this to policy, the US might institute a VAT (broad based consumption tax) which would, by its nature, be highly regressive. But suppose we use the money to pay for universal health care. Given that the chief beneficiaries of such a plan would be people in the bottom 2 quintiles of income distribution this would redistribute vast amounts of wealth.

Just saying. Economic liberty is not freedom from taxation, or even a “flat tax” rate. You also need to look at how the money is spent.

Either way, by signaling the desire of contemporary Democrats to move even further left than is feasible in the U.S., Obama draws attention to the unoccupied space in American politics.

But surely, you know, moving in an actual liberaltarian direction would be better for you than running in the opposite direction. I'm sorry, but this “by doing exactly the opposite of what I hope, he draws attention to the unoccupied space” argument seems weak to me. Certainly compared to actually occupying that space.

For what it's worth, yes, the result of this budget is to make self-described conservatives and CPAC attendees much more concerned about freedom than values.

But the argument of “It's a good thing that no matter who is power does the opposite of what I want, since that just makes the opposition be very close to what I want” seems strained. It would be better to have two parties that each have elements of what you want than a situation where whoever is in power is the opposite of your desires, and whoever is in opposition does what you like.

Though it worked for Malcolm Muggeridge, I suppose. Some people always prefer the cleansing feel of opposition

1) you must account for 1994-1998: tax hikes on the rich followed by economic expansion and massive wealth gain by upper income earners

2) how in the hell did tax cuts for the middle class and reversion to tax levels from 10 years ago get to be this huge radical initiative, that all good libertarians and conservatives must oppose to the death on principle? Why is this even approaching something we should even be disturbed by?

Seriously people, look at the numbers on tax levels for various classes of earners over the past half-century. Then ask yourselves how it is you can use all this hyperbole with a straight face.