During the middle years of the Bush Administration, Republicans voted better on economic liberties and Democrats better on personal liberties. With the War in Iraq, the corrupting tendency of power, and the social conservative agenda in ascendancy, libertarians who might have been inclined to support Republicans became increasingly conflicted. Support for Republicans eroded and they lost their majorities in Congress, state legislatures and Governors in 2006, and they lost the Presidency in 2008.

In 2008, with Democratic majorities in Congress and with Republicans in Congress acting increasingly independent of the President, Republicans looked like veritable Champions of Liberty. But, this might only mean that they oppose increasing the speed of the nation’s movement toward socialism.

As always, identifying 20 votes is relatively easy with regard to economic liberties. My lists of economic liberty votes for each chamber cover a wide range of issues. These include spending, taxation, and industrial, labor and trade policy. The most prominent votes of the 2008 session involved the bailouts of the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage industry, and the automobile industry. I’ll say about these votes below.

My personal liberty votes include some personal liberties associated with conservatives such as the right to keep and bear arms, and some associated with liberals such as the rights of the accused. It also includes some orphan liberties such as the right of adults to decide what they do when in private. We uphold the family, local government and free association, and we oppose government-funded speech (i.e., propaganda).

The personal liberties votes with which I have to work reflect the agenda of the session and may not be representative of a Congressional member’s true voting tendency. I cull many of these votes from proposed amendments to bills, and, in particular, from proposed amendments to appropriations. During much of 2008, the House of Representatives operated under rules for considering bills that allowed few if any amendments and government was funded mostly by continuing resolution, which had the result of limiting my choices.

The first bailout votes involved a recapitalization of the Federal Housing Authority, which had become insolvent due to problem with the low- and zero-down payment mortgages that it had guaranteed. The next bailout vote involved Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two depression-era mortgage banks created by the federal government which - although somewhat privatized - continue to enjoy the perception of a federal guarantee. Thus far, we’re talking about $300 billion for the FHA and $100 billion each for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The third bailout vote involved the creation of a $700 billion authorization to borrow, known as the TARP fund, for the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to be used to buy various and sundry damaged assets, such as mortgage-backed securities. And, the fourth bailout vote was to lend billions of dollars to the domestic automobile manufacturers.

Including loans from the Federal Reserve to induce JP Morgan Chase to acquire Bear Stearns and to keep AIG afloat, and various Congressional add-ons to the TARP bill, and we’re talking of $1.5 trillion. And, to paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there, and soon we’re talking about real money.

The idea of all these bailouts was to prevent damaged assets from being dumped onto the market, causing their values and the values of similar assets to fall, perhaps causing a financial panic, and perhaps even a deep and prolonged recession. Thank goodness for the sudden revival of Keynesian economics in Washington or else – who knows – the stock market might have collapsed, our domestic automobile companies may have gone bankrupt and we might have fallen into a severe recession.

In the House, roll call vote #414 was to ban the sale or importation of "non-human primates," this year’s manifestation of the animal rights agenda. It passed 302 to 96. In the Senate, this measure was subsumed into roll call vote #189, which did not survive a filibuster vote, 52 to 40. Monkey business thus remains legal for yet another year in the United States.

In the House, I have roll call votes on U.S. involvement in both the Mexican drug war (#393) and the Colombian drug war (#499), both of which passed overwhelmingly.

Also in the House, I have both an amendment (#600) toughening up a proposed DC gun ban ban (that’s right, to ban the D.C. gun ban) and the vote on passage (#601). As sometimes happens, the crucial vote is on the amendment, although both votes are meaningful.

Technically, Congressman Rush of Illinois finished last (or, first from the pro-government point of view) with a combined average score of zero. However, he was absent from Congress for much of the year and only registered a few roll call votes. Finishing next to last was the troika of Scott (GA), Cleaver (MO) and Nadler (NY). Close behind them were Gutierrez (IL) and Meeks (NY).

The lowest-scoring Republican was Gilchrest (MD), with a 26; and, the highest-scoring Democrat was Cooper (TN) with a 42.

In the area of economic liberties, 18 Republicans scored perfect 100s, while 68 Democrats scored perfect 0s.

The toughest votes for Congressmen who otherwise voted correctly were (in order): the Mortgage Bailout, Earmarks and AIDs Relief. The toughest votes for Congressmen who otherwise voted incorrectly were (in order) the Mortgage Bailout and the Progressive Caucus Budget.

In the area of personal liberties, Congressman Paul registered a perfect 100, followed by three of his fellow Texas Republicans, Carter, Gohmert and Marchant. Thirteen Democrats scored 7 or 8.

The toughest votes for Congressmen who otherwise voted correctly were (in order): Colombia Drugs, FISA and Detainee Interrogation. The toughest votes for Congressmen who otherwise voted incorrectly were Detainee Interrogation and Debt Relief.

From the opposite perspective, Senators Lautenberg and Menendez of New Jersey shared the Party of Big Government’s gold medal, with scores of 20. Sharing the Party of Big Government’s bronze medal were Senators Boxer of California, Klobacher of Minnesota and Schumer of New York, with 22’s.

On the economic component of the index, three Senators achieved perfect 100s, Senators Ensign, Kyl and DeMint. Most of those who did well but fell short of perfection were tripped up by the farm votes. Other tough votes for otherwise free-market Senators involved the Fannie and Freddie Bailout, Earmarks, Auto Company Bailout and Flood Insurance.

From the socialistic perspective, there were a total of 13 perfect zeros. Another 14 would have scored zero but for the Flood Insurance vote, which – while it would promote the cause of socialism – would be environmentally problematic. Another three would have scored zero but for the Income Tax vote which was mostly window-dressing. In the Senate, the so-called Blue Dog Democrats were simply Running Dogs for the radical left-wing of their party.

On the personal liberties component of the index, there is little to say about the scores of individual Senators. Almost all the action was between the 40 yard lines. Some of the votes on one measure were, nevertheless, curious.

Foreign Policy Issues
     In the 2003 Liberty Index, I counted the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq as an anti-liberty vote. This was my personal call and did not reflect any official stance by the Republic Liberty Caucus. Every year since then, I have called for an exit strategy. From 2003 until 2007, I observed a shift of the political axis from something like a libertarian versus authoritarian ("up-down") direction to a conservative versus liberal ("right-left") direction. And, I have observed the deterioration and eventual loss of the Republican political majority.

By 2008, the Democrats were calling if not for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq then for a timetable for withdrawal. At the time, Senator (now President) Obama was the leading proponent. So, why is it that so many Democrats did not vote "aye" on the Iraqi Mission vote? Is it that Senator Obama and other Democrats, like Senator Kerry, vote "aye" when they mean "nay," and "nay" when they mean "aye" on war resolutions? Or, is it that they wanted the issue for the election more than the wanted a resolution of the issue?

Over on the Republican side, four Republicans crossed over to the Liberty Index position, every Republican Senator and these four in particular having voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq five years prior. These were Senators Hagel of Nebraska, who had become an outspoken critic of the war, Voinovich of Ohio, Dole of North Carolina and Smith of Oregon. The latter two were in tough re-election campaigns that they would eventually lose.