Rep. Ron Paul won the most support for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in an unofficial straw poll of conservative activists attending an annual conference.

A libertarian from Texas who has railed against spending and the Federal Reserve, Paul won the Saturday contest at the Conservative Political Action Conference with 31 percent backing.

This straw poll does not mean much, but Paul’s success does raise a crucial question for Republicans: are they going to lean conservative or libertarian?

Another libertarian the Republicans might nominate in 2012 is Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico.  You can read about him here and here.  Full disclosure: I have been working with Johnson on his economic program.

Conservative commentary these days is fixated on U.S. fiscal imbalance and holds that we should address the imbalance with spending cuts, not tax increases.

Missing from most such commentary, however, is specifics about what expenditure to cut (see, e.g., Daniel Henninger’s recent WSJ piece).

Conservatives recognize that addressing the debt in a serious way means cutting national defense, Social Security, and Medicare.  But conservatives support high spending on national defense, and they are unwilling, for reasons of political expendiency, to propose reductions in entitlements.

Libertarians also believe we must slash expenditure, but they are happy to name specific cuts.  Libertarians advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and they endorse major cuts or elimination of Social Security and  Medicare.

The public thus perceives the conservative position as disingenuous, the libertarian position as unelectable.  Take your pick.

In response to concerns that unemployment remains high despite the stimulus, President Obama said this:

“You can argue, rightly, that we haven’t made as much progress as we need to make when it comes to spurring job creation.” … “That’s part of the reason why I expect Congress to pass additional measures as quickly as possible.”

The President’s response assumes that the first stimulus worked, just not enough. That is possible, but maybe the Keynesian model that underlies the case for stimulus is just wrong.

Non-Keynesian perspectives suggest that additional spending or poorly designed tax cuts will harm the economy by distorting resource allocation.  More broadly, stabilization policy instills a belief that governments can moderate recessions, which encourages risk-taking and larger booms and busts.  A steady stream of  policy “remedies” creates uncertainty that discourages productive activity.

So maybe the treatment is worse than the disease.

My writings on drug legalization seem to generate a lot of interest from college and high school students (surprise).  Thus, I get many emails from students posing questions about my research, or requesting an intereview, or asking for a reprint.

One high school student with whom I corresponded recently just sent me the following:

Sorry I never thanked you for talking to me about marijuana legalization. I got my internet privileges taken away for, funnily enough, smoking marijuana. So anyways, thanks.

I wonder if his parents see the humor!

On Monday, my son started the classroom portion of the state-mandated driver’s education program.  He views it as a collasal waste of time, especially since it is eating his entire winter break.  In his opinion, the state should just administer an appropriate written test on the material and let students choose how much to prepare.  If they flunk, they study more until they pass (yes, he is a libertarian).

When my daughter took the course a few years ago, she said her class divided into four groups:

Front few rows: ultra nerdy private school kids who took careful notes on everything the teacher said.

Next couple of rows: nerdy public shools kids who sort of paid attention, but not diligently.

Third set of rows: non-nerdy kids of all flavors who paid little attention and played hangman, or texted each other, or read a book, or whatever.

Last set of rows: stoners who were quite obviously high/asleep for most of the classes.

Whenever media stories report a surge of deaths from heroin use, it turns out that more potent heroin has recently arrived in a particular city or town.  For example, a recent L.A. Times headline reads

Black tar moves in, and death follows

and the story goes on to explain that

The death was part of a rash of overdoses, 12 of them fatal, that shook Huntington that fall and winter. All were caused by black-tar heroin, a potent, inexpensive, semi-processed form of the drug that has spread across the United States, driven by the entrepreneurial energy and marketing savvy of immigrants from a tiny farming county in Mexico.

These deaths are due to prohibition.  In a legal market, information about potency would be readily available, so few users would suffer these accidental overdoses.

One argument libertarians offer against government funding for education is that it facilitates thought control, since funding education means defining education.  This problem is particularly accute if funding comes in the form of public schools; it exists but is more easily avoided if funding comes as education vouchers.

Advocates of public schools view this concern as wild exaggeration, but I wonder what they think about a recent decision by the Texas School Board:

Finally, the board considered an amendment to require students to evaluate the contributions of significant Americans. The names proposed included Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy. All passed muster except Kennedy, who was voted down.

More broadly, as this article explains, Christian Conservatives have become almost a majority of the Texas Board, and they want the public school curriculum to teach that the founding fathers were Christian and intended for the country to be the same.

The power to fund is the power to control.

From Darren McHugh, in the Queens University Department of Economics.  His bottom line:

The net benefit of the Olympic Games is therefore also substantially negative when the estimates of Olympic benefits from this paper are combined with published estimates for event costs.

In other words, the U.S. should be happy that President Obama failedto secure the 2016 summer games for Chicago.

More than a year after President George W. Bush left office, more Americans continue to blame his administration over any other entity for the nation’s economic woes, according to a new poll.

In a New York Times/CBS News survey out Friday, 31 percent of Americans said the Bush administration is at fault for the current state of the economy while only 7 percent pointed their finger at President Obama and his team.

My assessment differs somewhat from this poll’s;  I would argue that the following pre-Obama policies played the main role in generating the current mess:

1. The housing policies pursued by HUD, FHA, Fannie, and Freddie.

2. The implicit (almost explicit) guarantees issued by the Fed that it could clean up the housing bubble without much fuss;

3. The growth of expenditure during the Bush administration (Medicare prescription drug coverage, Middle East Wars, pork for everyone).

4. The Wall Street bailouts.

But then I would argue that the following Obama policies have made the recession deeper and longer:

1. Endorsement of the Wall Street bailouts (Obama voted for TARP and appointed a key architect, Tim Geithner, as his Treasury Secretary)

2. The auto bailouts;

3. The fiscal stimulus;

4. Populist ranting at Wall Street over compensation, taxes;

5. Refusal to extend the Bush tax cuts, or repeal the estate tax, or cut taxes rates generally;

6. Pre-occupation with resdistribution over productivity: health care, card check, auction-less cap-and-trade, and continued support for low-income homeownership.

Thus, plenty of blame to go around.

In 2006, Massachusetts enacted a health insurance “reform” that became the blueprint for Obamacare.  Now

Governor Deval Patrick is seeking sweeping authority to review and reject rates charged by hospitals, physician groups, medical imaging centers, and insurers, in a broad new effort to make health care more affordable, particularly for smaller companies and their workers.

The Governor’s desire to reduce costs is understandable, since Massachusetts has the highest premiums in the nation.

But the Governor’s approach to reducing expenditure is misguided because it will kill the incentive to supply healthcare services in the Commonwealth.  A better approach is to make consumers pay a higher fraction of their health costs, via increased co-pays and deductibles in government insurance and greater taxation of employer-paid premiums.