Liberaltarians?

I see little difference between this economic platform proposed by Brink Lindsey and that of the standard economic platform of the Bush presidency. Most Republicans (protectionists like Pat Buchanan aside) support decreased taxes on saving and investment, decreased payroll taxes (and other regulations that hamper the labor market), and a shift to private saving as opposed to government pension and entitlement programs.
.

Lindsey - "we need to move from the current pay-as-you-go approach to a system in which private savings would provide primary funding for the costs of old age."

This solution sounds curiously similar to the "private savings accounts" proposed by Bush, which was met with stiff opposition by the liberals of the democratic party.
The only major distinction I see between his "liberal" (which means democratic)platform and the current "conservative" platform is taxes on energy. And I dare any party to raise gas costs after the public's overwhelmingly negative response to price hikes in recent years that were out of the governments control. I would have to say that Lindsey would do well to more closely examine the real policies of the liberals he attempts to find common ground with as well as the policies of conservatives, which may be more economically sound then he gives them credit for.

Ah, you want to make sure it is the militant Islamists who have the fork and spoon, right?

Well, Hayek supported some social safety nets, including famously, national health insurance, much to the disgust of harder line Misesian libertarians. However, this was the original ideology of the sozialmarktwirtschaft, the "social market economy" as cooked up by the Ordo-Liberals of Freiburg in the late 1940s, heavily under the influence of Hayek.

Allright, this is a one time offer, the complete solution to public education.

Eliminate all federal education programs for grammar school, save the school lunch program. Substitute a twice weekly buffet dinner at the school for parents guardians and students.

We should understand how this helps.

Otherwise, the idea in the inner city is to get the citizens highly motivated in getting government exactly right, an optimum public sector. Price and demand for government should go directly to income on each addition or deletion of government.

We are better off with parents fighting to save their bottom line by making local government efficient; even if that means a negative income tax. Our problem now is that the inner city is being dispossessed, like the peasants in a DeSoto "Mystery of Capital" book.

I believe I've seen Jackie Chan defeat a gang of gun-toting Yakuza with a fork and spoon. Maybe he also had a serviette. But it's totally possible.

What you're missing here is that liberals want to use taxes to punish people, especially productive people.

We have been cutting taxes on savings and investment for a quarter century. during this time the personal savings rate has collapsed and the share of capital spending done by those subject to the personal tax rate -- partnerships, s-corps, etc.-- has been cut in half.

If for 25 years a policy has been tried and produced exactly the opposite of the desired results don't you think it is time you reconsidered your policy proposals?

"What you're missing here is that liberals want to use taxes to punish people, especially productive people."

Wrong. The ones trying to punish are the angry libertarians who have organized themselves into leftists. A leftist is a small government libertarian who has been ripped off by conservatives and their penchant for big government.

Liberals are quite unbiased about punishing anyone, the classical liberal just wants things to roll along as best things can be rolled along.

The purpose of the progressive tax is to keep the wealthy from growing government, in particular to keep the classical American conservative from using government on some expansive and poorly run foreign or domestic policy.