On the campaign trail, reports MSNBC, Sarah Palin is telling audiences Barack Obama would raise taxes and expand the federal government. Her punch line:

“America, we just cannot afford another big spender in the White House.”

That’s for sure.

Now that we’ve released the Cato Supreme Court Review and the Court has started its new term, I’m on the road quite a bit giving speeches and participating in debates. Here’s the schedule for my next trip, which starts tomorrow in Atlanta. All events are open to the public (though the lawyers’ events charge admission):

10/14 at 12pm — Atlanta Federalist Society Lawyers — Kilpatrick Stockton, 1100 Peachtree St.

10/14 at 4pm — Emory Law School — 1301 Clifton Rd., Atlanta

10/15 at 12pm — University of Florida Law School — 2nd Ave. & 25th St., Gainesville

10/15 at 4pm — Florida State University — 425 W. Jefferson St., Tallahassee

10/16 at 11:30am — Florida Coastal School of Law — 8787 Baypine Rd., Jacksonville

10/16 at 5:30 pm — Orlando Federalist Society Lawyers — The Citrus Club, 255 S. Orange Ave., 18th Floor

10/20 at 12pm — University of Miami Law School — 1311 Miller Dr., Coral Gables

If you come to one of these events because you learned of it from this blog post, please do come up and introduce yourself.

In the November issue of Liberty magazine I write about one factor that I think reduces the political impact of libertarian-leaning voters: the fact that they’re all over the map about which party or faction represents the lesser of the evils:

One reason why libertarians underperform politically is that they are politically split, not just between radicals and incrementalists, as can happen in any political movement, but also among various political movements — while being too small to influence any of them very much.

It seems to me that libertarians come in several political groupings:

(1) Those who care primarily about free markets and thus support conservative Republicans. Given the candidates on offer, that means helping to move the GOP to the right on social issues (and war and civil liberties) as well as on economic issues. This group would include the Club for Growth, Republican “Leave Us Alone” activist Grover Norquist, many donors to free-market thinktanks, and probably most libertarian-leaning politically active people.

(2) Those who want to make the GOP more socially tolerant and thus support moderate Republicans, which effectively means Republicans who aren’t very free-market. This would include Log Cabin Republicans, pro-choice Republicans, and lots of Wall Street and Silicon Valley businesspeople.

(3) Those who think the GOP is irredeemably bad on social issues and civil liberties and thus support Democrats. This would again include some Silicon Valley businessmen who are pro-entrepreneurship and fiscally conservative but just can’t support a party that is opposed to abortion rights and gay rights. A dramatic example is Tim Gill, the founder of Quark, who calls himself a libertarian but has contributed millions of dollars to Democrats because of Republican opposition to gay rights. There are also broadly libertarian people involved in the ACLU, the drug-reform movement, and other civil libertarian causes.

(4) Those who support the Libertarian Party. They don’t get many votes, but they include a large percentage of libertarian activists.

If only some candidate or movement could bring them all together.

Today, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded Princeton University economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences “for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.” 

I recently debated Krugman on whether it’s a good idea for government to guarantee universal health insurance coverage. But today I have nothing but congratulations for him.

The Swedish Academy of Sciences has awarded the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to Paul Krugman, in recognition of his contribution to trade theory and specifically for his work on the effect of economies of scale in international trade.

Although Prof. Krugman is perhaps better known these days for his columns in the New York Times and his strong criticism of the Bush administration, trade wonks are well aware of his scholarly contributions, which number in the hundreds of scholarly journal articles and tens of books (including, jointly with Maurice Obstfeld, my undergraduate trade textbook). He won the John Bates Clark medal in economics in 1991, an arguably tougher prize to win than the Nobel.

I have my concerns with Prof. Krugman’s later work and his tendency to allow his political views to trump economic good sense. As the Economist [$] wrote in 2003 “A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world’s ills to George Bush…Even his economics is sometimes stretched…” He is generally considered to be a big-government liberal. But the prize was not awarded for his NYT columns or his opinions on economic or foreign policy.

The Nobel is much deserved, even if Prof. Krugman’s rants have led him to stray far from his admirable trade-theory roots.

Many argue that the demand for public goods justifies government spending and taxing. Defense spending is a classic public good. The New Times offers an interesting case study of how the federal government actually spends money on defense.

The story recounts the activities of Michael Cantrell, a Defense Department employee who turned into a lobbyist for various projects connected to the missile defense program. According to the story, Cantrell “extracted nearly $350 million for projects the Pentagon did not want, wasting taxpayer money on what would become dead-end ventures.”

Cantrell is awaiting sentencing on corruption charges related to taking kickbacks for defense contractors. But his violations of the law did not start until 2000. Much of the $350 million wasted on defense projects happened before he started taking a cut of the action.

Read the whole story. Here is my summary: Pentagon officials did not want the projects Cantrell pushed, but powerful members of Congress did support such outlays. DOD had missile ranges around the world, but Ted Stevens thought another one was needed in Alaska. Acoustics research might have been conducted many places, but Trent Lott preferred the work done by the University of Mississippi in Oxford and a Huntsville defense contractor that had a branch office in Oxford. And so on.

In other words, members were directing the DOD budget to benefit their constituents in exchange for votes on election day. “Vote for me and I will give you $1,000” is not limited to presidential elections.

Gordon Tullock once wrote of campaign finance:

It should of course be kept in mind that [campaign contributions] are not actually for the purpose of buying votes. The votes are bought by the bills passed by Congress, or the Legislature, which benefit voters. But the campaign money is used to inform the voters about what their congressman has done. Since the voters pay little attention, concentrating the message on a narrow scope and repeating it again and again is necessary even though it annoys intellectuals. On the whole it is the actual things done for the voters by the votes of their and other congressmen, which attract voters to elect those congressmen.

The Cantrell story confirms Tullock’s insight. The reporter mentions campaign finance contributions by defense contractors, but by and large, the story is one of constituent service (that is, the creation and maintenance of vote purchase schemes).

There are several interesting questions here. Can Congress actually provide public goods efficiently? Isn’t Cantrell’s story one of earmarking without the earmarks? If so, won’t the practice of earmarking continue even if Congress gets rid of earmarks? The story shows Congress in a poor light, but don’t we want the legislature to control its agents (like the Pentagon) instead of simply delegating authority to spend to them?

One final lesson. The Cantrell story shows what happens when Congress has money to spend on national defense. In coming days, the federal government may come into ownership of many banks. How do you think Congress will spend the capital of those banks?

Jonathan Chait, a journalist who frequently attacks supply-side economics, derides Peter Robinson of National Review for making a big deal out of a statement by 100 economists (or maybe it’s only 90) warning about the dangers of Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and restrict international trade. Robinson may have gone a bit far in calling the statement “The Booming of the Big Guns.” As Chait says, 100 economists isn’t all that many. After all, 200 economists warned against the Wall Street bailout, and you see how much good that did.

But Chait also sneers at the quality of the economists who signed this statement opposing new burdens on production and trade. “The list certainly does not suggest excessive discrimination about credentials. It’s heavily larded with GOP apparatchiks now residing in the right-wing think tank world.” Actually, it’s not. There are maybe half a dozen who list think-tank affiliations, including people like Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution, who–perhaps Chait does not know–holds a Ph.D. from MIT and taught for years at the highly regarded University of Rochester econ department. And then there are five Nobel Laureates–Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith.

After his snipe at “GOP apparatchiks now residing in the right-wing think tank world,” Chait says “(my favorite is “economist” George Schultz of the Hoover Institution).” OK, let’s think about that. First, it’s Shultz, not Schultz. And just who is this “GOP apparatchik George Schultz”? Well, Chait probably thinks that seven successful years as Secretary of State doesn’t qualify you as an expert on taxes and international trade. Maybe not. But Shultz also has a Ph.D. from MIT. And he taught economics for 20 years at MIT and the University of Chicago. He then served as director of OMB and Secretary of the Treasury. Qualified to comment on U.S. economic policy? I’d say so.

But if you insist on academic credentials–and 20 years at MIT and Chicago in the past doesn’t count–that still leaves you five Nobel laureates. And lots more economists of substantial accomplishment and reputation, including some who just might get a Nobel Prize one of these days, people like Robert Barro, Mike Jensen, John Taylor, Michael Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Anne Krueger, Glenn Hubbard, Burton Malkiel, Kevin Murphy, and Cato’s own Bill Niskanen. The fact is, I’ve seen a lot of petitions from economists, and this one is more top-heavy with academic credentials than most. 

It’s intriguing to note that the statement does not endorse McCain’s economic proposals, it just criticizes Obama’s. Perhaps they couldn’t get five Nobel laureates and the other accomplished economists on the list to do that.