“Our party faces an existential crisis,” Oaksun said.  “On a real inflation adjusted basis, fundraising has dropped by more than 70 percent this past decade.  That’s a disaster.  We need change and change now.”

Oaksun, who is also chair of Liberty For Maine, a Portland, Maine-based freedom and liberty advocacy organization, laid out two priorities for the committee.  First, he will prepare a zero-based budget for the party to use in establishing immediate needs.  In addition, he advocates development of a longer-term vision for the party to encourage new and increased membership participation and fundraising.

“We have to start from zero,” Oaksun said.  “Nobody’s going to give money to fund overhead and not see tangible results.  We need the biggest bang for the buck, today.  We’re not getting that right now.  That must change.

“In addition,” Oaksun continued, “we’ve got to develop a compelling vision for what we want to accomplish.  And then, put a price tag on it and figure out how to raise the money.  Our partners want to be sure their money is being used well.  That hasn’t been happening for a long time.  That must change, too.  I’m ready to do my fair share as treasurer and bring as many people along with the new vision as we can.”

Oaksun is a cum laude graduate of Dartmouth College, and earned an MBA from Cornell University.  Prior to founding Virtual Galt, he spent more than 20 years in financial and actuarial positions with New York Stock Exchange-listed companies.  He was a Maine delegate to the 2008 Libertarian National Convention.

A full text of Oaksun’s announcement statement is available at http://bit.ly/oaksun4treasurer.

Based in Portland, Maine, Virtual Galt Corporation is a financial consultancy dedicated to meeting the needs of midlife professionals.

I am a long term radical and a short term pragmatist.  We are going to work toward a freer America with a smaller government.  Over time, maybe even a minimal government.  But it will take work and time.  I am in this to win, not immediately, but for Sarah’s generation and her children.  The journey has to start, and it starts with acknowledgement of the zone of possible answers.

Recently I published an article (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=305824&ac=PHedi) where I identified my home state of Maine as being the poorest of the 48 continental US states, contrasted Maine’s tax and budget policy with that of the wealthiest state (Wyoming), and made some recommendations. The most important recommendation was that Maine eliminate its corporate and personal income tax and replace it with a tax on carbon (i.e., oil, natural gas and coal). I thought it would be wise to respond to some of the comments made about the article and expand on some of the reasoning behind the approach I suggest, from my perspective as (in my mind anyway) a “practical libertarian.”

1.  The tax is too high.

Many commented that the proposed tax ($2/gal on liquid fuels, $5/tcf on natural gas and $200/ton on coal) was excessive and would represent an undue burden for many people. I can respond to this in a number of different ways.

First, it highlights the insidiousness of tax withholding. Many people are completely unaware of how much tax they are paying, since the government painlessly (!) deducts the tax immediately from their paychecks. The carbon tax I suggest in the article merely replaces the current revenue of the income tax, and, perhaps more importantly, moves it out into the open where everyone can see how high it is and thus how expensive their current form of government is.

There is a further reason for my proposal. Most libertarians (myself included) believe that government should become smaller and less intrusive. “How” that should happen, is a matter for discussion among various factions in the libertarian movement. For myself, I believe that over time the government can become dramatically smaller, but that this will take some years to effect.

If a state or nation uses the income tax as a prime funding mechanism, revenues to the central government will always be biased upward over time. If we can move toward taxation of a resource that will be used less over time, the tax base will shrink. Then, those who advocate new government programs will have to either impose new additional taxes, or shrink or eliminate existing programs.

As we transition to a more libertarian society we want to get to a place where the machinery of government is more starved of its fuel (i.e., money). A carbon tax is an ideal mechanism for this.

2.  We’re cooking the Earth but don’t blame me!

I am not going to enter the debate about global warming – fact or fiction. Let’s assume for the moment that the case for AGW is correct and that we are doing damage. Well, the obvious remedy is to figure out how, over time, to use a lot less fossil fuel. Taxing the offending items is the obvious remedy

Yet AGW adherents seem to believe that “someone else” should pay more. Well, time to put that to rest. If we really are cooking the planet, we are all going to have to recognize the amount of fuel we use and pay accordingly.

3.  Somebody has to use less fossil fuel just not me!

Many commenters said we needed to develop alternative sources of energy. What better way to do that than to make existing sources more expensive. And if that encourages people to stop living in sieve like structures, and stop driving that 10-15 mpg car, well so be it.

4.  Your idea is stupid but I have nothing else to offer as alternative.

I consider this unacceptable. Maybe some people are happy with Maine being in permanent last place among states. I am not. Tinkering around the edges is not going to solve this problem. Only a change in thinking and paradigm will blast us out of last place.

5.  You’re not even a libertarian. If you were, you’d advocate eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing. Time to cut the state government 50 percent, today.

This is just unrealistic. That is why I call myself “The Practical Libertarian.” I am a long term radical and a short term pragmatist. Government will wither and die when it is no longer needed, when people are shown over time a better way to organize and live. But it will take time.

In another article (http://ezinearticles.com/?Kill-the-Code—And-Save-the-World&id=1875617) I argued for implementing this idea at the national level – wiping out the Internal Revenue Code altogether and replacing with a carbon tax. Just kill it off! Don’t tinker, wipe it out.

There is a path to a freer society with a much smaller government. But there is a zone of possible answers that can win an election. I want to win elections, not have endless debates that lead nowhere. Maine can become a freer, more prosperous state. And libertarians can see America become a freer and more prosperous nation.

So here is the challenge to my fellow libertarians and to all those who want to see positive change in America:  What is the strategy?  What can happen today, this year?  If your position is, “My way or Bust!”, then accept that it’s probably going to be Bust.

Let’s get to work.

Yet there are affordable places in America where you might actually want to consider living.  By our calculations there are six “top picks” and seven other metro areas worth considering.

Currently on the market in these metro areas, you’ll find 4500 homes of at least 2000 square feet (good sized residences) available at an asking price (not the sell price, the ask) of Under $100,000. You read that right — under six figures.

What would your mortgage payment be?  About $500/month.  Taxes and insurance extra.

Paying $1500-3000/month now to rent, like many in the big cities are?  Want to start some serious saving?  Want to make sure you have a nice retirement?  Want to be free?

You can find freedom… and I can help you.

***

The Top Six:

Indianapolis

Dallas

Houston

Orlando

Chicago

Philadelphia

***

Seven More Worth Considering:

Fort Pierce/Port St Lucie FL

Fort Myers/Cape Coral FL

West Palm Beach

Naples FL

Phoenix

Las Vegas

Louisville KY

check out the Virtual Galt website

Town-level vote totals in Maine, and county-level results in California and Washington, were merged with 21 demographic variables to assess whether there was a consistent explanation for the results in the three states.  The study found, in all three states, higher levels of wealth and education were strong predictors of support for the equality position.

In addition, a predictive model was constructed to calculate the probability of marriage equality being passed in all states within the next 5-10 years.  The model predicts that Hawaii, Colorado, New Jersey, Maryland and Alaska are the states most likely to pass marriage equality next.  California ranked tenth, and New York fifteenth.  Maine – where marriage equality lost at the polls last month – ranked twenty-fourth.

The study and analysis was conducted by James Oaksun, chair of Liberty For Maine and president of Virtual Galt Corporation.  Oaksun stated that, “Marriage equality is getting strong support from educational and economic elites, across multiple states.  The problem is getting the next tier of support.  Until the issue gains more traction with middle class voters, marriage equality will face tough sledding in the political process.”

In the report, Oaksun also offers five reasons why marriage equality lost in Maine, and suggests a strategy for the marriage equality movement going forward.

The report is available in .pdf form.

Liberty For Maine (www.Liberty4Maine.org) has been formed to advance the interests of freedom and liberty in Maine in an active, creative and assertive manner, offer support to similar efforts underway in many other states and nationally, and engage in other activities as appropriate.  The group has declared its support for the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party.

Based in Portland, Maine, Virtual Galt (www.VirtualGalt.com) is an economic and financial consultancy focused on the needs of gay men and lesbians at midlife.  The company’s holistic Financial Freud(SM) process examines all aspects of a person’s life and makes recommendations that enhance financial as well as personal freedom.  Among other efforts, the company is working on developing the first-ever stock index fund of companies with superior LGBT employee policies.

The report is based on proprietary research on the detailed results of three public statewide votes on the issue in California, Maine and Washington state.  Because the same demographic variables correlated to results in all three states, the analysis was extended to all states and the District of Columbia, and overall probabilities established.

According to the report, the three states most likely to pass marriage equality in the near future are Hawaii, Colorado and New Jersey.  California ranked 10th, and Maine ranked 24th.

I am a libertarian, but not a purist.  I do believe there is a legitimate role for government in certain circumstances.  I do not believe the government can ust be switched off, immediately.  There is going to be a transitional period where we will need to have some fresh, new thinking.

We have close to 60 percent of the Federal budget going to pensions and health care.  How do you shut that off all at once?  Answer:  you can’t.  Not without social upheaval.  Let’s try to avoid that, shall we?

Consider health care.  Everybody knows Medicare could eventually bankrupt the country.  We need a long national dialogue on health and health care, involving questions of ethics and morality that government may not be in the best place to address.

And yet we know the administrative costs of processing an office visit, an X-ray, a prescription, are tremendous.  In my doctors office there are the health professionals and 2 or 3 clerks who just do battle with insurance companies all day.  Inefficient!  What though would be efficient?

I have an ingenious solution.

In America, roughly 4 million babies are born each year.  Here’s what we do.  Each time there is a registered live birth, the government sets up a special health savings account for that new person, funded initially by the government in the amount of $50,000.  There are some stipulations:

1.  The money must be invested in a balanced manner, with 50% in long term Treasury bonds, 25% US equities, 20% oil and 5% gold.

2.  The person must purchase an insurance policy with a maximum deductible of $2,500.  This maximum deductible will increase each year at the rate of health cost inflation.

3.  The insurance is guaranteed issue (no pre ex), community rated, can never be cancelled except for nonpayment, and rescission is forbidden.

4.  The insurance premium may be paid from the account.

5.  All health expenses up to the deductible will be paid directly from the account.

6.  Additional contributions may be made to the account throughout life.  The additional contributions will be tax free (deduction from AGI).

7.  At death the account is part of the decedent’s estate and may be distributed.  Otherwise the only allowed deductions from the account will be for qualified expenses.

Finally

8.  For these people, there will be no Medicare, Medicaid, nothing.  No need for employer insurance.  These people will have an individual contract, tied to them, fully portable, not contingent on employment.

Yes, it’ll take some time for the impact of this to flow through the system.

We will fund this by making employer-paid health insurance a component of taxable income.

Voila! Another case cracked by the Practical Libertarian.

“Forced savings? What happens if people don’t? What is the enforcement mechanism? If it is required by law and will be enforced in soem criminal or civil matter, from a “freedom perspective” how is it any different than social insurance? What if people borrow all the balance and caqnnot pay it back? What if returns are substantially sub par? What if we have a great depression where the equity markets lose 90% and t-bill yields go to 0%?”

It would be accretive to freedom insofar as you would have access (however limited) to the funds in advance. You could probably restrict it somewhat, make the loan value a decreasing percent of the asset as you age. Is it absolutely pure libertarian/anarchistic? No, but neither am I.

If it would be “as good as” government, and possibly better, then why does the government have to be involved?

The 5-year return on this strategy going back to 1965 ranges from 0 to 20%, averaging 10%.  Meaning annual return compounded over 5 years ranges from 0% per year to 20% per year.

Additional benefit: the money is part of your estate at death, and can be passed on to descendants, charity etc. Unlike SocSec where if you die the payments stop.

Note also you have to decide by age 35 to participate. That is deliberate. After 35 you don’t get sufficient compounding to make this a better deal than the current system.

Basically… I am calling for the gradual, over time unwinding of these programs.  This sets me apart from many of my friends in Libertarian-Land.  That’s why I call myself “practical”.  These programs got built up over time, and they have to be dismantled carefully, and also over time.  Otherwise you will never get buy-in sufficient to do it.  You can’t say, “well it’s 100 percent or nothing.”  Because the answer is going to be, “OK… then Nothing!”  I’m OK with, well we can’t get 100 percent today, but we can get 30 percent.  So let’s take it, see how it goes, and in a couple years we come back and go for 100 again, and they’ll say oh no, but we can go 50… etc etc.

It’s a pathway, revolutionary in thought, evolutionary in implementation.

Check out the Virtual Galt site while you’re at it…

But before you say “you’re throwing Granny out on the street!” let me explain.

If you want the current system, you’ve got it.  If you’re getting benefits, you’ll still get them.

BUT… if you are under 35 years of age, you will have the choice of opting out of the system.  If you decide to opt out, you must make a mandatory investment of 12.4% of your gross income into a fund that is comprised of 50% long term bonds, 30% US stock index, 15% oil and 5% gold.  At retirement you must put 50% of the account balance into short term US treasury bills.

If you are employed, your gross income will be increased by 6.2%, because that is what your employer is now paying in Social Security tax for you.  (Medicare is extra and will be considered separately.)

You may borrow against this account balance, with all loans to be repaid by age 65.

Take a look at what this would mean for a 25 year old with a salary of $30,000.  Assume the salary increases by 3% per year and that the investment fund earns 10%.

That’s right — a balance of over $2 million at age 65.  And this is in addition to implementing the “coffee strategy” of yesterday, and the GaltGold car strategy I describe on the website.

You will have found freedom.

Learn more at the Virtual Galt website

Megan talks this morning about her financial planning, dangers of debt, etc etc.  Well, here’s an idea that might work for you.

You won’t make your local barista happy, but hey, what’s more important?  We report, you decide.  (oops, somebody took that one already.)

Say you forego that morning grande/large coffee.  Make it at home, or something.  Anyway, stop spending the 2 bucks or so that it costs.  (We’ll assume the price increases by 3% per year.)

Save that money and invest it at 10%.

Do this from age 25 to 65… and you will have $400,000 to play with.  Yes, Four Hundred Thousand.

It looks like this:

And how is SocSec dispensed with?  Well the typical person today retires with a pending SocSec benefit of maybe $1500 per month.  That implies an annuity asset of around $300,000.  Of course, there is no such asset backing your SocSec; it’s being extracted from other taxpayers, the money you were taxed having gone to pay existing retirees.  And when you die, the payments stop.  Nothing for your estate.

So just this one step get you something better.

Far fetched?

Get more info at the Virtual Galt website

The full text can be found here.